json/Talmud/Yerushalmi/Seder Zeraim/Jerusalem Talmud Challah/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Jerusalem Talmud Challah",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah",
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> Five kinds are subject to <i>ḥallah</i>: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the determination of these grains, see <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.1.1.1\"><i>Kilaim</i> 1, Notes 2–3</a>. In current practice, שיפון is interpreted as rye, following Rashi. Flour made from these and only these grains qualifies as bread flour. All other flours are cake flours; bread made from them is legally cake.</i>. These are subject to <i>ḥallah</i> and combine with one another<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mixed dough is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> if the volume of flour used is at least that specified in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah 2:6</a>.</i>. They are forbidden as new grain before Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a>.</i> and may not be cut before the ‘<i>omer</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The ‘<i>omer</i> is the sheaf of barley cut first in the spring harvest and brought to the Temple (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:10\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.10\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:10</a>), in rabbinic interpretation on the second day of Passover, the 16<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">th</sup> of Nisan.</i>. If they formed roots before the ‘<i>omer</i>, the ‘<i>omer</i> permits them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While the first harvest is that of barley, all other grains, including wheat, are immediately permitted for profane use. Only for the Temple is new wheat forbidden until the Festival of First Fruits, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:16\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.16\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:16</a>.</i>; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘<i>omer</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This and the next paragraphs are also in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:2-12\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.4.2-12\"><i>Pesaḥim</i> 2:4</a> (fol. 29b).</i>“Five kinds are subject to <i>ḥallah</i>”, etc. It is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:19\" href=\"/Numbers.15.19\"><i>Num</i>. 15:19</a>): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is <i>ḥallah</i> which follows the rules of heave.</i> for the Eternal.” I could think that everything<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since לחם can also mean “food”, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Genesis 47:12\" href=\"/Genesis.47.12\"><i>Gen</i>. 47:12</a>.</i> is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>; 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since bread is usually made from these.</i>. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num.</i> 15:20</a>,<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:21\" href=\"/Numbers.15.21\">21</a>) “the first of your dough,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The expression is emphasized by repetition. One has to include every grain usable for making dough.</i>” this includes. Does it include everything<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this argument, rice and millet for example should also be included.</i>? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.</i>: Rebbi Ismael stated this.",
                "Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The son of R. Zeïra who had been a <i>baraita</i> teacher in his father’s academy. The father of R. Mana was R. Jonah.</i>, but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A similar text <i>Sifry Num</i>. 110. As regards Passover only, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 35a\" href=\"/Pesachim.35a\">Babli <i>Pesaḥim</i> 35a</a>, <i>Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo</i> Chap. 8, 17; <i>Sifry Num</i>. 146.</i>: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 16:2\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.16.2\"><i>Deut</i>. 16:2</a>.</i> and “bread” is mentioned for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:19\" href=\"/Numbers.15.19\"><i>Num</i>. 15:19</a>.</i>. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened, bread mentioned for <i>ḥallah</i> must be something that can be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened; all others cannot be <i>maẓẓah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called <i>maẓẓah</i> since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not qualify as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil.</i> or leavened but would spoil.",
                "It was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.1\">Tosephta 1:1</a>; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Pesachim (Lieberman) 2:17\" href=\"/Tosefta_Pesachim_(Lieberman).2.17\">Tosephta <i>Pesaḥim</i> 2:17</a>; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 35a\" href=\"/Pesachim.35a\">Babli <i>Pesaḥim</i> 35a</a>.</i>: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, <i>qeramit</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 33\" href=\"/Pesachim.33\">Geonim (<i>Oẓar Hageonim Pesaḥim</i> p. 33</a>) a grain growing wild among reeds in swamps, used as human food in times of famine. In the opinion of I. Löw (<i>Flora der Juden</i> 1, p. 703) <i>Glyceria fluitans</i>, a grain preferring swampy ground, frequently used for animal feed, also for soups and flour. {Also cf. Latin <i>gramen, -inis</i>, n. “grass, dog’s grass” (<i>Plin. Hist. Nat</i>. 24,19,118, #178) (E. G.)}.</i> is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened.",
                "There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Terumot</i> 10:2. The paragraph is explained there, Notes 15–19.</i>, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi 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. Rebbi Yose stays with 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 <i>maẓẓah</i> and leavened, so only wheat and barley can be dragged with anything<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They can be dragged to be subject to <i>ḥallah</i> even if only a small part of the dough is grain and the rest is filler. The reference is either to <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:5:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.5.1\">Mishnah 3:6</a> or <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.1\">Tosephta 2:1</a>, a cake made from rice and wheat is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> if it tastes like bread. The question is whether “wheat” stands for any grain or only for wheat itself and the grains closely related to it.</i>. Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, we have only stated: “He who makes dough from wheat and rice;” only wheat can be dragged in.",
                "Is one guilty because of new grain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">New grain is forbidden until the sheaf of barley is brought to the Temple on Passover; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:9-14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.9-14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:9–14</a>. It is stated here that the definition of “bread” established for Passover and <i>ḥallah</i> is valid for the prohibition of new grain also.</i> when it is roasted? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a>): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” 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.",
                "Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four <i>qab</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah 2:6</a> states that dough made from <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup>/<sub>4</sub> <i>qab</i> of flour is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, it is clear that one has to read here “quarter <i>qab</i>” instead of <i>qab</i>. The leavened flour by itself is not enough to induce an obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> separately and made them leavened, and another four <i>qab</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Another <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup>/<sub>4</sub> <i>qab</i> of rice, millet, or pea flour which cannot be leavened and which by themselves never induce an obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After he mixed the leavened dough with the non-grain flour, he now has 2 <i>qab</i> which potentially are obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> for <i>ḥallah</i> can they become <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the leavened flour were more than the unleavened, the unleavened could be disregarded and all would be subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but when is it evenly split it does not satisfy our crtiteria.</i>] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15,</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A similar text <i>Sifry Num</i>. 110. As regards Passover only, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 35a\" href=\"/Pesachim.35a\">Babli <i>Pesaḥim</i> 35a</a>, <i>Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo</i> Chap. 8, 17; <i>Sifry Num</i>. 146.</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 16:2\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.16.2\"><i>Deut</i>. 16:2</a>.</i>. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.</i>. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He says in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:5:2-3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.5.2-3\">Halakhah 3:6</a> that there can be no obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> unless more then 50% is bread flour and the finished product tastes like bread. R. Zeïra in that Halakhah is quoted as stating that R. Hila got the names of the Tannaïm wrong in his <i>baraita</i>.</i> even though he disagrees with him.",
                "Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Isaiah 28:25\" href=\"/Isaiah.28.25\"><i>Is</i>. 28:25</a>): “He puts wheat, <i>śorāh</i>, barley; <i>nismān</i> and spelt are its limit.” “He puts wheat”, that is wheat<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbinic equivalents to the biblical Hebrew names are given for all five kinds.</i>. “<i>Śorāh</i>” is foxtail and why is it called <i>śorāh</i>? Because it is made in a line<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The expression חטה שׂוֹרה probably means “ripe wheat”, cf. Accadic <i>šer‘u</i> “ripe grain”. All expressions are explained here as names of grains. The interpretation of שׂורה as שׁורה shows that in Talmudic times in Galilee, <i>š</i> was heard as <i>s</i>, under the influence of Greek. Cassuto in his biblical commentary accepts the interpretation as genuine.</i>. “Barley”, that is barley. “<i>Nismān</i>” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit”, bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The common name for Prophets and Hagiographs. These are sources of moral teachings but have no standing as books of law.</i>? Rebbi Simon said, since it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Isaiah 28:26\" href=\"/Isaiah.28.26\"><i>Is</i>. 28:26</a>): “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation, in contrast to that of the next paragraph, follows the masoretic division of the text.</i>” it is as if it were a word of the Torah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But the next paragraph immediately contradicts this statement; there is no source of biblical law other than the Torah. {Prophets and Hagiographs are used as basis for rabbinic decrees.}</i>.",
                "Rebbi Simon said, those women who say: we shall not send our sons to the communal school; if he is good at learning he will learn [by himself]; they do not act well, but (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Isaiah 28:29\" href=\"/Isaiah.28.29\"><i>Is</i>. 28:29</a>): “He shall be instructed in his God’s law, it will teach him.”",
                "Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Mishnah which forbids harvesting any of the five kinds of grain before the <i>‘omer</i>. The statement of R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa is in <i>Sifra Wayiqra Paršata</i> 13(5). The problem is <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 2:14-16\" href=\"/Leviticus.2.14-16\"><i>Lev</i>. 2:14–16</a>, speaking of the cereal offering of first fruits. The verse cannot speak of individual first fruits (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 26:1-11\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.26.1-11\"><i>Deut</i>. 26:1–11</a>) since no cereal offering is connected with these. For any other cereal offering, the flour is specified. It is always wheat except for the <i>‘omer</i> sheaf (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:9-14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.9-14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:9–14</a>) and the offering for the wife suspected of infidelity (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 5:15\" href=\"/Numbers.5.15\"><i>Num</i>. 5:15</a>). <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 2:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.2.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 2:14</a> does not specify the kind of cereal for the offering. The cereal offering of first fruits is identified as the <i>‘omer</i> offering; this determines the flour as barley flour.</i> is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could 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 <i>‘omer</i> offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the <i>‘omer</i> offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <i>Sifra</i>, the second argument also refers to the <i>‘omer</i>.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The nature of the grain cut for the <i>‘omer</i> is not specified in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:9-14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.9-14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:9–14</a>. But since the “new grain” for the cereal offering of the 50<sup>th</sup> day is specified as fine wheat flour, the earlier offering cannot possibly be wheat.</i>; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning <i>a minore ad majus</i>.”",
                "Rebbi Yose said, who would think that Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi could think that the cereal offering of the <i>‘omer</i> could come from spelt, foxtail, or oats? If somebody said, black figs are [forbidden] to me, is he not permitted white ones? But “black ones” he said, “white ones” he did not say. And here, “milky white barley” was said<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 9:31\" href=\"/Exodus.9.31\"><i>Ex</i>. 9:31</a>. The first-grain cereal offering is described in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 2:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.2.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 2:14</a> as “milky white, parched in fire.” The argument shows that the Mishnah can be the opinion of everybody. A similar argument is attributed in the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 68b\" href=\"/Menachot.68b\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 68b</a>, to R. Eliezer.</i>, “milky white foxtail” was not said.",
                "But for the rabbis they are three kinds! Oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail are a kind of barley<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.1.1.1\">Mishnah <i>Kilaim</i> 1:1</a>, oats and spelt, barley and foxtail, are described as “not <i>kilaim</i> one with the other.” Therefore, they must be counted as one botanical species.</i>. The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Did we ever state: Five species? No, five kinds. Two times two kinds are one species.",
                "There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 4:2</a>, which seems to contradict the statement of the Mishnah here that the five kinds of grains can be added together for the minimal amount needed for the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>, we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If different doughs are placed together so they touch one another and, if separated again, small parts of one dough will cling to the other. Then all pieces together form one dough for <i>ḥallah</i> if made from compatible flours.</i>, here if it was mixed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If there is only one dough made from mixed flour, it is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> as if it were of homogeneous flour.</i>. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since biting is a weak form of mixing, the rule of the Mishnah here applies only if the entire doughs are mixed, following R. Ḥiyya (the elder).</i>.",
                "Can they whip because of their <i>ḥallah</i> as a biblical law<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If somebody made a dough from different kinds of flour that cannot be combined according to <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 4:2</a> and ate from the bread without taking <i>ḥallah</i> following <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.1\">Mishnah 1:1</a>, he ate <i>ṭevel</i>. Can he be convicted and sentenced to be whipped on the testimony of two eye witnesses?</i>? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their <i>ḥallah</i> as a biblical law<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.1\">Mishnah 4</a>:2 is the biblical, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.1\">Mishnah 1:1</a> the rabbinic standard.</i>. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Also quoted <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Zevachim 75a\" href=\"/Zevachim.75a\">Babli <i>Zebaḥim</i> 75a</a>. The Babli states that R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold (a) that different prohibitions are not cumulative but competing and (b) that criminal intent can only be proved by a warning that specifies the exact paragraph of the penal code the perpetrator was warned about; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.1.4\"><i>Kilaim</i> Chapter 8, Note 9</a>. Here, R. Yose argues only about point (a), not (b).</i>: If somebody ground and mixed <i>piggul</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the verse <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 19:6-7\" href=\"/Leviticus.19.6-7\"><i>Lev</i>. 19:6–7</a> it would seem that פגול (Arabic فجل “soft, mushy”) refers to sacrificial meat left after the time allotted for its consumption. However, since leftover meat already is forbidden in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 7:17-18\" href=\"/Leviticus.7.17-18\"><i>Lev</i>. 7:17–18</a>, פגול is defined as meat from sacrifices which were slaughtered with the intention of eating them outside the holy precinct. Similarly, “leftover” does not really denote leftover meat but meat from sacrifices slaughtered with the intention of eating them after the allotted time. Eating פיגול is a deadly sin, eating leftover meat a sin, and both invalidate the sacrifice. If the sacrifice was slaughtered correctly, then an accidental leftover or piece outside the precinct is still forbidden but does not invalidate the sacrifice.</i> and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If somebody makes chopped meat out of <i>piggul</i> and leftover in approximately equal amounts and then eats the volume of an olive of the mixture, for R. Joḥanan he ate a punishable amount of forbidden meat and committed a crime. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, he ate less than an olive-sized piece of either <i>piggul</i> or leftover and cannot be punished for either one.</i>. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is possible that R. Joḥanan agrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish about <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Eating from dry flour is not forbidden. The prohibition comes only with the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>, with the production of dough ready to be baked. Therefore, the case here involves no competition of laws. However, if the dough is large enough that one single kind already would induce the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>, then everybody agrees that eating the bread without taking <i>ḥallah</i> is a criminal act.</i>. If one made five doughs<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Each one large enough to induce the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their <i>ḥallah</i> as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.",
                "“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Also quoted in the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 115a\" href=\"/Pesachim.115a\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 115a</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Zevachim 79a\" href=\"/Zevachim.79a\"><i>Zebaḥim</i> 79a</a>. It is written about the Passover sacrifice (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 12:8\" href=\"/Exodus.12.8\"><i>Ex</i>. 12:8</a>): “They shall eat the meat in that night, roasted on the fire, and <i>maẓẓot</i>, on bitter herbs they shall eat it.” Similarly, it says about the second Passover (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 9:11\" href=\"/Numbers.9.11\"><i>Num</i>. 9:11</a>): “They shall eat it on <i>maẓẓot</i> and bitter herbs.” Hillel held that this means one has to eat of meat, <i>maẓẓah</i>, and bitter herbs together in one bite.</i>.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 115a\" href=\"/Pesachim.115a\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 115a</a>, explains R. Joḥanan to say that in Temple times, when all three commandments are biblical, one has the choice to follow Hillel or eat the three ingredients separately. This cannot be the position of the Yerushalmi since then the discussion would not even start.</i>. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of <i>maẓẓah</i> and bitter herbs<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Babli, Rav Ashi (who lived after the compilation of the Yerushalmi) rules that one eats twice, once each item singly and once as a sandwich. Naturally, there cannot be any meat mentioned here; cf. the author’s <i>The Scholar’s Haggadah</i> (Northvale NJ, 1995) pp. 332–338. Since R. Joḥanan here is accused of inconsistency, he cannot have followed the custom established by Rav Ashi.</i>? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the absence of a Temple, only <i>maẓẓah</i> is a biblical commandment since it is prescribed separately from any Temple service, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13:6-7\" href=\"/Exodus.13.6-7\"><i>Ex</i>. 13:6–7</a>. Bitter herbs are mentioned only as accessory to the sacrifice; therefore, today one eats bitter herbs purely as a remembrance of the Temple as rabbinical ordinance. R. Joḥanan must hold that a rabbinic ordinance cannot interfere with a biblical commandment. Therefore, it is possible to eat <i>maẓẓah</i> and bitter herbs together. But he holds that in Temple times, each of the three ingredients must be recognized by its taste. This position is the opposite of that of the Babli.</i>. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This explains the rejection of Hillel’s position in Temple times. Since there are three biblical obligations, they cancel one another and none of them is fulfilled.</i> Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Zevachim 79a\" href=\"/Zevachim.79a\">Babli <i>Zebaḥim</i> 79a</a>. R. Eleazar supports R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish and his making a sandwich in the manner of Hillel. He must hold that R. Joḥanan reports that most authorities of Hillel’s time disagreed but he himself agrees.</i>: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.",
                "Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This paragraph is rather cryptic and each commentator has his own scenario to make sense of the text; <i>Sefer Nir</i> even has two radically different interpretations. Therefore, the interpretation given here must be considered as tentative.<br>The first dough is made from five kinds of flour. But <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 4:2</a> states that if dough is made from wheat and barley then all other kinds of grain add to the dough and cannot be treated separately (spelt adds to wheat and all except wheat add to barley). Therefore, the questions can be asked only about wheat and barley but not about the other three kinds. “Wheat” has to be interpreted as “wheat and spelt” and similarly for barley.<br>The first dough is subject only to rabbinic <i>ḥallah</i> as explained above, Notes 44–45. The other doughs are too small to be subject to <i>ḥallah</i> by themselves. If they are taken together, does the wheat in the “rabbinic” dough prevent the pure wheat dough to be counted as biblically obligated?</i>. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The answer to the preceding question is obviously “no”.</i>? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The five doughs are all subject to <i>ḥallah</i>. Since they were obligated before being mixed, that obligation cannot go away, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:15\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.15\">Note 50</a>.</i> and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These doughs are not subject to <i>ḥallah</i> before being put in contact with the large one.</i>. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The question is not answered but since the preceding question was answered in the negative, it is implied that this one also is answered in the negative.</i>?",
                "“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a>.</i>.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the <i>‘omer</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a> reads: “Bread, parched and green grains you shall not eat until that day proper, until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice, a permanent rule for your generations in all your dwelling places.” <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sifra, Emor, Section 10 10\" href=\"/Sifra,_Emor,_Section_10.10\"><i>Sifra Emor, Parašah</i> 10(10</a>) points out that the sacrifice must be the <i>‘omer</i>, the sheaf of barley brought to the Temple. If it would refer to the accompanying sacrifice (v. 13), then “doing” would be used instead of “bringing (in from the outside)”. Since the two conditions, the day proper (the morning light) and the <i>‘omer</i>, are formulated in parallel, rather than sequential, it is not clear which one is determining when there is a Temple. If there is no Temple, the day is determining by default. The position of Ḥizqiah seems to follow the simple meaning of the verse. Contrary arguments are detailed in the next paragraphs.</i>. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the <i>‘omer</i>” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When there is a Temple.</i>, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The difference between R. Jonah and R. Yose is purely in the formulation. According to R. Yose, if there is no sacrifice the meaning of the verse is clear and does not need rabbinic interpretation. In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 68a\" href=\"/Menachot.68a\">Babli (<i>Menaḥot</i> 68a</a>), the position of Ḥizqiah is that of his cousin Rav and of Samuel.</i>. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 5\" href=\"/Menachot.5\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 5a/b</a>, 68a, R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a>): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even R. Joḥanan will agree that new grain is not permitted early in the morning of the day after Passover. The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 5\" href=\"/Menachot.5\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 5a/b</a>, holds that R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish hold that dawn is “the day proper” and new grain is permitted immediately.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the verse stated two conditions for permission to use new grain and in Temple times at dawn of the 16th of Nisan only one condition is satisfied, he holds that new grain still is forbidden, but not as a criminal act, until after the <i>‘omer</i> was brought.</i>. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As rabbinic decree.</i>. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Menaḥot</i> 6:10, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 68b\" href=\"/Menachot.68b\">Babli <i>Menaḥot</i> 68b</a>.</i>: “One may not bring cereal offerings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This can only be the cereal offering of the suspected wife (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 5:15\" href=\"/Numbers.5.15\"><i>Num</i>. 5:15</a>), which is barley flour. All other cereal offerings are of wheat flour and these cannot be from new harvest until Pentecost (Rashi).</i>, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These are always from wheat flour and cannot be from new grain even after the <i>‘omer</i>. They are mentioned here only because of the next sentence in the Mishnah, not quoted here, that they may not be brought from new wheat before Pentecost but if brought are not invalid.</i> before the <i>‘omer</i> and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, his cousins and fellow students of their father.</i>. 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. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Nisan.</i>, he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Also follow. There would be no disagreement left.</i> Rebbi Joḥanan!",
                "Did we not state<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Menaḥot</i> 6(10):5; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sifra, Emor, Section 10 10\" href=\"/Sifra,_Emor,_Section_10.10\"><i>Sifra Emor Parašah</i> 10(10</a>); cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 3:11:1-3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sukkah.3.11.1-3\">Mishnah <i>Sukkah</i> 3:13</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 4:3:2-3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Rosh_Hashanah.4.3.2-3\"><i>Roš Haššanah</i> 4:3</a>.</i>: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The day of bringing the <i>‘omer</i>. The language is from <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:11\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.11\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:11</a>: “He shall <i>elevate</i> the sheaf before the Eternal for acceptance in your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the Cohen shall <i>elevate</i> it.”</i> should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 68b\" href=\"/Menachot.68b\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 68b</a>, puts it: Maybe the Temple will be rebuilt instantaneously by a miracle on the second day of Passover and then new grain will be forbidden by biblical law until the <i>‘omer</i> can be brought.</i>. If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As a matter of principle, there should be no “fence” to guard against infringements of rabbinical decrees.</i>? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They will not know when the <i>‘omer</i> was presented and, since in classical times longitudes could not be determined with any degree of confidence, were not able to convert Jerusalem local time into their own local time.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a <i>baraita</i> of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a>): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could 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.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The objection from the previous paragraph that the institution of Rabban Joḥanan makes sense only if the prohibition of new grain on the day of the <i>‘omer</i> is biblical.</i> and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Menaḥot</i> 6(10):5; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sifra, Emor, Section 10 10\" href=\"/Sifra,_Emor,_Section_10.10\"><i>Sifra Emor Parašah</i> 10(10</a>). R. Jehudah interprets בעצם היום הזה as: “including the essence of the day”, meaning the entire day in the absence of the Temple (Rashi). The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 68b\" href=\"/Menachot.68b\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 68b</a>, holds that Rabban Joḥanan agrees with R. Jehudah and, therefore, he did not institute a rabbinic decree but decreed the correct interpretation of the biblical law.</i>, since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.",
                "There, they were apprehensive to have the great fast for two days<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since all holidays in the diaspora are two days, originally because the exact calendar dates could not quickly be transmitted from the Synhedrion to the diaspora. The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Rosh Hashanah 21a\" href=\"/Rosh_Hashanah.21a\">Babli, <i>Roš Haššanah</i> 21a</a>, reports that some rabbis in Babylonia fasted two consecutive days; the same is reported from early Medieval German rabbis.</i>. Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you bring yourselves into that great uncertainty<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The “great uncertainty” is what in the Babli is called “possible danger to one’s life”.</i>. One may trust that the Court is never lazy<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since up to now it never happened that the first of Tishre was not the 30<sup>th</sup> of Elul (cf. <i>Ševiït</i> 10:2, p. 639), if it should happen the Synhedrion would immediately have sent signals to that effect.</i>. The father of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was apprehensive for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.",
                "“If they formed roots before the <i>‘omer</i>, the <i>‘omer</i> permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The summer grain must have formed roots before the presentation of the <i>‘omer</i> in the Temple. Rebbi Yose requires that the roots already be formed at the time of the harvesting of the barley sheaf, usually on the preceding evening.<br>The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 70b\" href=\"/Menachot.70b\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 70b</a>, quotes this tradition and the switched one in the inverse order of the Yerushalmi.</i>. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He agrees that a private person may start harvesting the moment the sheaf has been cut for the Temple. Though usually one may not perform agricultural work on the intermediate days of a holiday, cutting new grain for the enjoyment of the holiday is permitted since it was impossible to do so before the holiday. But the Temple will not accept a barley cereal offering from new grain before the presentation of the <i>‘omer</i>. If the barley cut for the Temple became impure before presentation, it cannot be used and its cutting retroactively is invalid. {While the barley and its flour never became wetted, putting the flour in a Temple vessel prepares it for impurity.}</i>, cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.",
                "Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said (<i>Lev</i>. 214): “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the sheaf of barley, cf. Notes 35, 63.</i> to the Eternal.” This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ‘<i>omer</i> comes and permits it. Do we not hold before cutting<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As usual, the argument is from a part of the verse which is not quoted explicitly: “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal; milky white roasted in fire, farina from soft kernels you should bring as cereal offering to your God.” The verse prescribes that the barley after cutting must be threshed, roasted, and milled before presentation. But the expression “milky white” specifies which plants are sufficiently ripened to be candidates for cutting. Therefore, the verse must speak of the time of cutting.</i>? In addition, from the following which was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 55a\" href=\"/Pesachim.55a\">Babli (<i>Pesaḥim</i> 55a</a>), the <i>baraita</i> is in the name of R. Jehudah who states in Mishnah <i>Ševiït</i> 2:6 that any transplant which does not form roots in three days will not survive.</i>: “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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the action of the ‘<i>omer</i> would be counted from presentation, then replanting on the 14th would still leave three days, part of 14th, 15th, part of 16th, to form a root. Since the <i>baraita</i> specifies the 13th as last day for replanting, it follows that the operative time of the ‘<i>omer</i> is early in the night of the 16th, the time of cutting the barley.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Abinna supports me, since Rebbi Abinna said, explain it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.4.1.1\">Mishnah <i>Pesaḥim</i> 4:1</a> states: “In a place where one is used to work in the morning of the 14th [of Nisan], one may work; in a place where one is not used to work in the morning of the 14th [of Nisan], one may not work.” If work on the 14th is forbidden, it is obvious that the 13th is the last day for weeding and the <i>baraita</i> quoted in the preceding paragraph does not prove anything about the ‘<i>omer.</i> Since it is stated that one may replant on the 14th, it follows that only the presentation of the ‘<i>omer</i> is relevant.</i> following this <i>baraita</i>: “In a place where one does not usually work on the 14th, but not in a place where one is used to work on the 14th.” If it is cut; maybe also when it is standing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An objection by R. Jonah. Maybe agricultural work, while permitted on the morning of the 14th, is restricted.</i>? It was found stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Pesachim (Lieberman) 3:18\" href=\"/Tosefta_Pesachim_(Lieberman).3.18\">Tosephta <i>Pesaḥim</i> 3:18</a>: “In a place where one is used to work on standing grain on the 14th until noon, one may do so.”</i>: “In a place where people are used to work on cut produce, one may work even on standing grain.”",
                "“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘<i>omer</i>.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If it is barley.</i> be used to bring [next year’s] ‘<i>omer</i>? 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this version, nothing sown before the New Year can be used for the ‘<i>omer</i>.</i>? They objected, are there not the other kinds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All grains which are not barley.</i> which are dependent on the ‘<i>omer</i> but cannot be used for the ‘<i>omer</i>? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘<i>omer</i>; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘<i>omer</i>? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:10\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.10\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:10</a>) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 2:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.2.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 2:14</a>) “First fruits,” 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 Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is explained in <i>Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq</i> 15(1) that “first fruits” is a requirement that is waived if no ripe barley is found in the fields by Passover. Since it can be disregarded under certain circumstances this cannot be an absolute requirement.</i>. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He is R. Abin bar Ḥiyya, student of R. Zeïra.</i> That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘<i>omer</i> comes from it."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> If somebody eats the volume of an olive of <i>maẓẓah</i> from them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The five kinds mentioned in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.1\">Mishnah 1</a>.</i> on Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">More exactly, the first night of the holiday as spelled out in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 12:18\" href=\"/Exodus.12.18\"><i>Ex</i>. 12:18</a>: “In the evening you have to eat <i>maẓẓah</i>.” The remaining days of Passover, leavened bread is forbidden but <i>maẓẓah</i> is not required; one might live without bread.</i>, he did his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened [bread], he is subject to being cut off<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 12:19\" href=\"/Exodus.12.19\"><i>Ex</i>. 12:19</a>. The punishment of “being cut off” is divine punishment, not of the earthly court.</i>. If one of them is mixed with other kinds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is sinful to keep on Passover any leavened mixture made from flour of one of the five kinds mixed with other edible material.</i> one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the talmudic vocabulary, תבואה only means “grain.” But as shown in Halakhah 3, in biblical language the word means “any agricultural yield.”</i> is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is a shortened version of <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 7:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.7.2.1\">Mishnah <i>Nedarim</i> 7:2</a>: “He who takes a vow not to use flour is forbidden even dry Egyptian bean, the words of R. Meïr; but the Sages say, he is only forbidden the five kinds. R. Meïr says, he who takes a vow not to use grain is forbidden only the five kinds.”</i>. They are subject to <i>ḥallah</i> and tithes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As a matter of biblical law.</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one whips because of their <i>ḥallah</i> as a word of the Torah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The language of the Mishnah, “the volume of an olive of <i>maẓẓah</i> from them”, seems to mean that a <i>maẓẓah</i> made of mixed dough is acceptable on Passover and subject to <i>ḥallah</i> by biblical decree. This contradicts R. Simeon ben Laqish (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.2.2\">Note 51</a>) who held that different kinds, each of which measures less than the necessary volume, cannot be taken together to be subject to biblical <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Yose seems inverted. There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Each one large enough to induce the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>, he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The argument is accepted; the Mishnah permits mixed <i>maẓẓah</i> on Passover only if at least one kind of grain is present in a sufficient amount for an acceptable <i>maẓẓah</i> by itself.</i>”",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here begins the discussion of the statement about vows.</i> Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Everything vegetal.</i> according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? 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 (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 22:9\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.22.9\"><i>Deut</i>. 22:9</a>): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Spelt or oatmeal bread would have to be called spelt-bread or oatmeal-bread buit never “bread” without a qualifier.</i>. Rebbi 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”."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> The following are subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and <i>peah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 4:6:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.6.1\"><i>Peah</i> 4, Note 97</a>. Since the poor may sell the grain collected as gleanings, etc., the flour from these grains is subject to all rules of regularly harvested grain. The detailed arguments for exemption are in <i>Ma‘serot</i> 1, Notes 18–23.</i>, as well as abandoned property<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 6:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.6.1.1\"><i>Peah</i> 6, Note 1</a>, for the exemption from heave and tithes.</i>, First tithe of which its heave had been taken<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is purely profane; there is no reason why it should not be subject to <i>ḥallah</i>. The statement which is needed is that flour made from first tithe taken before the great heave becomes profane upon separation of the heave of the tithe (<i>its</i> heave, in the language of the Mishnah) without any great heave.</i>, second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But unredeemed second tithe in Jerusalem is free from <i>ḥallah</i> for R. Meïr who holds that it is Heaven’s property; cf. <i>Ma‘aser Šeni</i> 4, Note 67.</i>, the excess of the ‘<i>omer</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The flour from the barley cut for the ‘<i>omer</i> presentation which was not needed in the Temple. This was redeemed and sold by the Temple as profane.</i>, and grain not yet one-third ripe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the majority opinion, dough made from flour of green kernels, not yet one-third ripe, can become leavened and therefore is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>.; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:3-4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.3-4\">Notes 15–20</a>.</i>. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.<br>The following are obligated for tithes but free from <i>ḥallah</i>: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">151</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Anything from which a kind of flour can be extracted, other than grasses. The main examples are peas and beans.</i>, and less than five quarter [<i>qab</i>] of grain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">152</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A dough made with more than this volume of flour is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah and Halakhah 2:6</a>.</i>. Bismarcks<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">153</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The traditional spelling pronunciation is הַסּוּפְגָּנִים but better Mishnah sources write the word without ו, derived from Greek σπόγγος, Armenian and Syriac <i>spung “</i> sponge”. According to <i>Arukh</i>, they are what in Arabic is called إسْفُنْج <i>isfunj</i>, spherical spongy cakes fried in oil. In modern Hebrew, the word is used in the feminine: סופגניות.</i>, honey cakes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">154</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Defined in the Halakhah as “milk and honey”. The readings of the Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah, הדיבשנים, or of the Munich ms. of the Babli, הדבשנים, are preferable.</i>, roasted cakes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">155</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Greek, [ἄρτος] ἐσχαρίτης, ὁ, “[bread] baked over the fire”.</i>, pancakes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">156</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"II Samuel 13:9\" href=\"/II_Samuel.13.9\"><i>2S</i>. 13:9</a>.</i>, and <i>dema</i>‘<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">157</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Profane and heave mixed together, forbidden to all but Cohanim.</i> are free from <i>ḥallah.</i>",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:19\" href=\"/Numbers.15.19\"><i>Num</i>. 15:19</a>): “you shall lift”; (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>v</i>. 20</a>) “so you shall lift.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“It shall be when you eat from the bread of the Land, <i>you shall lift</i> a heave for the Eternal. The first of your doughs, <i>ḥallah</i> you shall lift as heave, as the heave of the threshing floor so <i>you shall lift it</i>.” At first glance, the second verse seems to imply that anything exempt from great heave should be exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>. Cahana assumes that R. Hoshaiah’s question was, why should the items enumerated in the Mishnah ever be subject to <i>ḥallah</i>?</i> He came back and said, from 14 [years]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The years of conquest and distribution under Joshua, when they ate <i>from the bread of the Land</i> but did not harvest themselves. Cf. <i>Seder Olam</i>11 [in the author’s edition (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 116–117, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.1\">Note 2</a>]; ‘<i>Orlah</i>1:2, Note 55.</i>. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but exempt from tithes.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 1:3:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.1.3.2\"><i>Terumot</i> 1, Note 159</a>.</i> Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 14:27\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.14.27\"><i>Deut</i>. 14:27</a>): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal. There is no difference between gleanings, forgotten sheaves, <i>peah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All poor are entitled to these, irrespective of their tribal affiliation.</i>, and abandoned property.",
                "“First tithe of which its heave had been taken;” since its heave was taken, is it not like profane? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Berakhot 47a\" href=\"/Berakhot.47a\">Babli <i>Berakhot</i>47a</a>,<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Shabbat 127b\" href=\"/Shabbat.127b\"><i>Šabbat</i> 127b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Eruvin 31b\" href=\"/Eruvin.31b\"><i>Eruvin</i> 31b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 35b\" href=\"/Pesachim.35b\"><i>Pesaḥim</i> 35b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Beitzah 13b\" href=\"/Beitzah.13b\"><i>Beẓah</i>13b</a>, in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2:3:2-9\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.3.2-9\">Yerushalmi <i>Bikkurim</i> 2:3</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2:3:10\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.3.10\">2:4</a> (fol. 65a).</i>. Rebbi Yose said, it is written<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two verses quoted are written about heave of the tithe. The MT of 18:28 reads מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ.</i> (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:29\" href=\"/Numbers.18.29\"><i>Num</i>. 18:29</a>): “From all its best, the holy part from it;” not its best and the best of another person. Rebbi Yose said, it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:26\" href=\"/Numbers.18.26\"><i>Num</i>. 18:26</a>): “You shall lift from it the heave of the Eternal, tithe of the tithe,” but not heave and tithe from the tithe. When he<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Levite who threshed the ears given to him as tithe.</i> made a heap and then gave its heave of the tithe. But if he gave heave of the tithe and then made a heap<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This starts the obligation of heave which then must be given. In the Babli, this is an observation ascribed to Abbaye.</i> this does not apply. When he gave from itself for it, but if he gave from another place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is permitted but then it is not “from it”; the verses do not apply.</i> this does not apply.",
                "“Second Tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But unredeemed second tithe in Jerusalem is free from <i>ḥallah</i> for R. Meïr who holds that it is Heaven’s property; cf. <i>Ma‘aser Šeni</i> 4, Note 67.</i>”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rebbi Hillel ben Vales<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The name appears as הליס, אליס, ולס.</i> argued in the name of Rebbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears,<br>is free from [the obligation of] great heave”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Mishnah states that redeemed second tithe is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i> but free from tithe. How can tithe be free from tithe? It must be that it is not free from tithe but from heave which is subsumed under the name of tithes.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Jonah asked: Following him who holds that it is not like his property<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But unredeemed second tithe in Jerusalem is free from <i>ḥallah</i> for R. Meïr who holds that it is Heaven’s property; cf. <i>Ma‘aser Šeni</i> 4, Note 67.</i>; but following him who holds it is like his property he must be obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If second tithe is the farmer’s property even before redemption, then redemption should make no difference in the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>. This means that the Mishnah is R. Meïr’s; it cannot follow R. Jehudah.</i>. He<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An unidentified person; probably it is R. Jonah’s usual partner R. Yose.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While everybody agrees that early first tithe preempts heave, nothing has been said about second tithe given early. If early second tithe is subject to heave, any dough made from it is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, including what still has to be given as heave.</i>, even its heave is obligated. For him who holds it is free<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The only second tithe that possibly is free is unredeemed second tithe consumed in Jerusalem. For him who holds it is Heaven’s property, any second tithe dough in Jerusalem is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>, even its profane part is free.",
                "For him who holds it is obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Early Second Tithe obligated for heave. It was established in <i>Terumot</i> 2:1 that heave of the tithe may be given from one batch for an unrelated batch.</i>, 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 <i>dema</i>‘<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Profane mixed with heave; cf. <i>Terumot</i> 3:2.</i> or like a dough which became <i>dema</i>‘<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.1\">Mishnah 4</a>.</i>? A heap of sheaves which became <i>dema</i>‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became <i>dema</i>‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became <i>dema</i>‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Constantinople print (Benvenist) has this as a declarative sentence: “It is heave.” The heap of sheaves is not processed but if heave is given, automatically all tithes are also due.</i>? A dough which became <i>dema</i>‘ if he transgressed and gave <i>ḥallah</i> from it before it became obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A (sufficiently large) bread dough is potentially obligated for <i>ḥallah</i> the moment it is no longer dry flour.</i> is not <i>ḥallah</i> as we have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah 2:5</a>.</i>: “If somebody gives <i>ḥallah</i> from flour it is not <i>ḥallah</i> and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two cases have been explained but the original question was not answered.</i>”",
                "“The excess of the ‘<i>omer</i>.” The Mishnah is not Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba makes it liable for heave and tithes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Menachot 10:6\" href=\"/Mishnah_Menachot.10.6\">Mishnah <i>Menaḥot</i> 10(6</a>):4; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 66b-67a\" href=\"/Menachot.66b-67a\">Babli <i>Menaḥot</i> 66b–67a</a>.</i>.",
                "“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 <i>ḥallah.</i> “Bread” mentioned in connection with Passover includes all that may be <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened, [therefore] also “bread” mentioned in connection with <i>ḥallah</i> includes all that may be <i>maẓẓah</i> or leavened<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15–18</sup><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the majority opinion, dough made from flour of green kernels, not yet one-third ripe, can become leavened and therefore is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>.; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:3-4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.3-4\">Notes 15–20</a>.</i>. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reasoning? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20</a>) “You shall lift it like heave from the threshing floor.” Since heave from the threshing floor is only from produce at least one-third ripe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <i>Ma‘serot</i> 1:3, Note 78.</i>, that also is only from produce at least one-third ripe. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have “bread, bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If there is an established tradition that the word “bread” means the same in both cases, R. Eleazar also must agree that the same standard applies in both cases.</i>”? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Bread or dough made from flour milled from grain not yet one-third ripe.</i> is not subject to <i>ḥallah</i> and nobody can use it to fulfill his duty on Passover.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This formulation is exactly the inverse of the same argument in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:7\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.7\">Halakhah 1, Note 23</a>.</i> Is one guilty for bread from it because of new grain? Rebbi Yudan said, it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:14\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.14\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:14</a>): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” 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.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">146</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ma‘serot</i> 1:3, Note 78.</i> Rebbi Zeïra said: It is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 14:22\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.14.22\"><i>Deut</i> 14:22</a>): “You shall certainly tithe all your seed-yield.” 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 dragged in concerning the matter of tithes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rebbi Eleazar, is it dragged in in the matter of <i>ḥallah</i> like a rice dough<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">147</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since grain less than one-third ripe is not subject to tithes, if such grain is mixed with ripe grain, only the ripe grain is subject to heave and tithes. The green kernels cannot become subject to tithes. Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.6\">Note 22</a>. On the other hand, it is stated in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:5:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.5.1\">Mishnah 3:6</a> that if a dough made from rice and grain tastes of grain, the entire dough is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i> and the bread baked from it is acceptable for Passover.</i>? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">148</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is forbidden to give heave from the new harvest for last year’s. Since <i>ḥallah</i> is called heave, how does one treat dough made from flour which is a mixture of last year’s and this year’s grain? No answer is given; it seems obvious that one does not have to investigate the origin of the flour one buys on the market.</i>? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">149</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis, flour from both fields is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> when made into a dough but only the riper one is subject to heave and tithes.</i> and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">150</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The grain seeds are somehow used to make flour. That flour cannot be measured in the minimal amount needed for <i>ḥallah</i> (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah 2:6</a>). But as human food it is subject to (rabbinic) tithes.</i> are two for <i>ḥallah</i> and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for <i>ḥallah</i> and tithes. ",
                "What are the rules “in between”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">158</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In between obligations, if dough is made from flour that is not totally profane.</i>? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">159</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All prior obligations also fall on the <i>ḥallah</i> taken from the dough.</i>. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">160</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 5:1:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.5.1.4\"><i>Demay</i> 5:1, Notes 23</a> ff.; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Terumot (Lieberman) 4:10\" href=\"/Tosefta_Terumot_(Lieberman).4.10\">Tosephta <i>Terumot</i> 4:10</a>.</i> If somebody makes dough from <i>ṭevel</i>, its <i>ḥallah</i> is obligated for heave and its heave for <i>ḥallah</i>. From where that <i>ḥallah</i> is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20</a>) “<i>Ḥallah</i> you shall lift heave,” from <i>ḥallah</i> you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift <i>ḥallah</i>”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">161</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The full verses read: “The beginning of your doughs, <i>ḥallah</i> you shall lift heave; like heave of the barn, so you shall lift it. From the beginning of your doughs you shall give a heave to the Eternal, for your generations.” The second verse states that <i>ḥallah</i> is due as a heave from the moment the kneading of the dough starts. But then the first “beginning” is redundant; it is taken to refer to actual heave which is called “beginning” in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:12\" href=\"/Numbers.18.12\"><i>Num</i>. 18:12</a>. Then the second clause of the first verse is read not “<i>ḥallah</i> you shall lift [as] heave” but “[from] <i>ḥallah</i> you shall lift heave.”</i>.",
                "Bismarcks are <i>tracta</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">162</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Latin <i>tractum, tracta,</i> Greek τρακτόν, τό, “long piece of dough drawn out in making pastry” (Liddell &amp; Scott). Mentioned in Apicius (<i>De re coquinaria</i>, Ed. M. E. Milham, Leipzig 1969) Bk. IV iii as used in serving fish, Bk. Vil using “three small <i>tracta</i> balls” for <i>pultes tractogalatae</i>.</i>. Honey cakes μελίγαλα<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">163</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“Honey-milk” baked goods.</i>. Ὲσχαρίτης are bake-meats<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">164</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root of חליטה seems to be Arabic ח̇לט “to mix”, from which Arabic מַח̇לוּטָא “baked from a mixture of lentils, peas, and farina.” The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 37a\" href=\"/Pesachim.37a\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i>37a</a>, defines חַלַּת מַסְרֵת as “non-commercial חָלוּט”; a better opposite to “commercial חלוּט” of the Yerushalmi.<br>The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 37b\" href=\"/Pesachim.37b\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 37b</a>, also defines חלוּט as “dough cooked by pouring boiling water over it” in contrast to מעיסה “dumpling” made by dropping lumps of dough into boiling water but the Yerushalmi (Halakhah 7) switches the meanings of both terms.</i> of the market, pancakes dumplings in water.",
                "Rebbi Joḥanan said, <i>tracta</i> is subject to <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">165</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The obvious contradiction to the Mishnah is resolved in the next paragraph.</i>, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">166</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The benediction required for bread and bread alone; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 6:1:2-26\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.2-26\"><i>Berakhot</i> 6:1</a>.</i>” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">167</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To eat <i>maẓẓah</i> defined as unleavened <i>bread</i>; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.3\">Note 15</a>.</i>. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, <i>tracta</i> is not subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, <i>tracta</i> is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, <i>tracta</i> is not subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">168</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Every dough baked in an oven. Their ovens were shaped as conical frustums, where the dough was clinging to the inclined wall directly over the fire.</i> under which the fire burns is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">169</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Dough baked in a pan whose bottom is filled with liquid (including oil) cannot become bread.</i>.",
                "The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and <i>dema</i>‘ are free from <i>ḥallah</i>!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">170</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He restricts the Mishnah to that unlikely case; this is accepted in the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 37a\" href=\"/Pesachim.37a\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 37a</a>.<br>A Genizah text has a more complete version: פתר לה בסופגנים שנעשו בחמה. ותני כן יוצאים בסופגנים שנעשו באור ואין וצאים בסופגנים שנעשו בחמה “He explains it for Bismarcks baked by the sun. It was stated thus (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Pesachim (Lieberman) 2:19\" href=\"/Tosefta_Pesachim_(Lieberman).2.19\">Tosephta <i>Pisḥa</i> 2:19</a>): One may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on fire but one may not fulfill one’s obligation by Bismarcks baked in the sun.”</i>; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">171</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the oven is much larger at the botton than in the upper part where the bread is baked, the heat comes from all sides. R. Simeon considers baking with heat coming just from one direction as cooking, not baking. In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 37b\" href=\"/Pesachim.37b\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 37b</a>, R. Simeon defines as cooking anything prepared in a vessel in the oven; he accepts as baking only what is in the oven without any vessel. This may be the same as his opinion explained here.</i>.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">172</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This paragraph appears, with minor spelling differences, in <i>Terumot</i> 4 and was explained there, Notes 76–81.</i> The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the <i>dema</i>‘ 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 do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one <i>seah</i> that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one <i>seah</i> 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 already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.",
                "“Less than five quarter [<i>qab</i>] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [<i>qab</i>] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">173</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is implied by the Mishnah which exempts only volumes strictly less that <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup>/<sub>4</sub> <i>qab</i>, against the opinion of R. Yose (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Eduyot 1:2\" href=\"/Mishnah_Eduyot.1.2\">Mishnah <i>Idiut</i> 1:2</a>) who requires strictly more than <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup>/<sub>4</sub> <i>qab</i>.</i>. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, <i>dema</i>‘ is free from <i>ḥallah</i> but <i>ḥallah</i> is obligated for what is possible <i>dema‘</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">174</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If there were two boxes and heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which, the contents of both must be eaten by Cohanim but are not exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> and is eaten because of <i>dema‘</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">175</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It seems that in the text one should read סָפֵק מְדוּמָע נֶאֱכַל מִשּׁוּם דִּימּוּעַ חַייָב בַּחַלָּה as in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:5\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.5\">Tosephta <i>Ḥallah</i> 1:5</a>, <i>Terumot</i> 7:8.</i>. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [<i>qab</i>], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from <i>ḥallah</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">176</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Maimonides, only if baked in the sun.</i> If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. Similarly, <i>qenubqa’ot</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">177</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A word of unknown etymology, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:4:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.4.3\">Note 182</a>. {Perhaps cf. Latin <i>clibanicius</i> (<i>viz., panis</i>) “bread baked in a <i>clibanus</i>, an earthen or iron vessel for baking bread; oven, furnace” (Lewis &amp; Short) (E. G.).}</i> are obligated.<br>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 it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">185</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In both cases, the dough will be baked in the end. In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 37b\" href=\"/Pesachim.37b\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 37b</a>, the definition of מעיסה and חליטה are switched; the Babli essentially follows the Yerushalmi here. The disagreement of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai is also quoted in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Eduyot 5:2\" href=\"/Mishnah_Eduyot.5.2\">Mishnah <i>Idiut</i> 5:2</a>.</i>. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">186</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 7:12\" href=\"/Leviticus.7.12\"><i>Lev</i>. 7:12</a>.</i> and those needed by the <i>nazir</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">187</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 6:15\" href=\"/Numbers.6.15\"><i>Num</i>. 6:15</a>.</i>, if he made them for himself they are exempt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">188</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since they are dedicated when baking they are exempt as sacrifice.</i>, to sell on the market obligated.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> A woman asked Rebbi Mana: Since I want to make <i>iṭry</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">178</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Greek ἴτριον “a kind of cake;” in later usage, any cake (L.&amp;S.). In Modern Hebrew, איטריות are “noodles”; cf. Arabic اطرية “vermicelli”.</i> in my kneading-trough, may I take from it so that it should be free from <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">179</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While the total dough in the trough is more than the minimum for <i>ḥallah</i>, the dough taken to make bread will be less than the minimum. This should be exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>? He said to her, why not? He went to ask his father<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">180</sup><i class=\"footnote\">R. Jonah.</i>. He said to him, it is forbidden; maybe she would change her mind to use it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">181</sup><i class=\"footnote\">More than the minimum for <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> as bread dough.",
                "“Similarly, <i>qenubqa’ot</i> are obligated”. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, <i>Zwieback</i>. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Agul in the name of Ḥizqiah said <i>boqrlṭa</i>. That you should not<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">182</sup><i class=\"footnote\">J. N. Epstein [<i>Tarbiz</i> 1(1929) p. 124–125] identifies קרמביטס as Greek κράμβιτας “<i>Zwieback</i>” {cf. Greek κραμβαλέος “dried, parched, roasted” (E. G.)} and בוקרלטא (in the Peterburg fragment בוקולתא) as Greek βούκκελλα {really from the Latin <i>bucella</i> (E. G.)} “small loaf”). The following is the text of <i>Or Zaru‘a</i> (R. Isaac from Vienna, 13th Cent.; §219): הַקְּנוּבְקָאוֹת חַייָבוֹת בחלה. פירש רבנוּ יצחק מסימפונט אין ידוע לנו ומסתבר עוֹשׂין אוֹתוֹ מן [הקמח] ואוֹפין אוֹתוֹ בשמש אוֹ בתנוּר וּכשרוֹצה סוֹלת כוֹתשין אוֹתוֹ אפילוּ הכי חייבת בחלה. ירוּשלמי׃ וכן הַקְּנוּבְקָאוֹת חַייָבוֹת בחלה ר׳ חנינא בר עיגול בשם חזקיה שקילטא שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא עָתִיד לְהַחֲזִירָהּ לְסוֹלְתָהּ תְּהֵא פְטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. “<i>qenubqa’ot</i> are obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. R. Isaac Simponti explains that we do not know what it is but it seems that one makes it from [flour], bakes it in the sun or the oven, and if one needs farina one pounds it; nevertheless it is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. Yerushalmi: ‘Similarly, <i>qenubqa’ot</i> are obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. R. Ḥanina bar ‘Agil in the name of Ḥizqiah, <i>šqylṭ’</i>; that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from <i>ḥallah</i>.’ ” In the Wilna Talmud edition of R. Isaac Simponti בן קלטא instead of שקלטא. There, he adds: “In our language (Italian) one calls loaves made in ring form בנקלטא”. There is no reasonable conjecture about the meaning of שקילטא, but בנקלטא probably should be read בוקלטא parallel to the reading of the Geniza fragment.<br>The <i>Arukh</i> defines <i>qenubqa’ot</i> by Italian <i>mostaccioli</i> (from <i>mostaccio</i> “snout”), a kind of ginger-bread cookie.<br>R. Ḥanina bar ‘Agil was a third generation Galilean Amora who is quoted elsewhere in the Yerushalmi as transmitting statements of Ḥizqiah (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 6:6:2-6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.6.6.2-6\"><i>Yebamot</i> 6:6</a>) and in the Babli as asking R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.</i> say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from <i>ḥallah</i>. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, dough for the sick is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>, that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from <i>ḥallah</i>.",
                "Rav said, dough for <i>kutaḥ</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">183</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Babylonian specialty cheese for which the active bacteria come from mold growing on bread. If the bread is never intended to be eaten, it should be exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>. In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Berakhot 37b-38a\" href=\"/Berakhot.37b-38a\">Babli (<i>Berakhot</i> 37b/38a</a>), R. Ḥiyya is quoted that such dough is exempt. The statement is then explained away because if one makes bread to grow mold, it is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but if the mold is grown on a kind of porridge it is exempt.</i> is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>. Rebbi Abun said, perhaps she will change her mind to make it white <i>Zwieback</i>. Rebbi Mana said, we have to announce publicly that those who make <i>‘abiṣin</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">184</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Babli, חביצין, Arabic خبيص, baked starch with milk and dates.</i> should make less than the measure since they think it is exempt but it is obligated.",
                "It was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">189</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.1\">Tosephta 1:1</a>. The Babli quotes this in the opposite way (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:14\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.14\">Note 164</a>) and insists that the water be not just hot but boiling.</i>: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">190</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Flour dumped into boiling water can become cooked and edible; if boiling water is poured over flour, the dough needs baking. It would be reasonable to require <i>ḥallah</i> in the second case; why do they require it only in the first?</i>? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">191</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Mishnah is composed of two incongruous pieces. There is no difference in the rules between parboiled flour and dumplings, but one student holds that the House of Shammai forbids and that of Hillel permits (both for חליטה and מעיסה) while the other holds that the House of Hillel forbids and the House of Shammai permits.</i>. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">192</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Caesarea Philippi.</i> and he said to me, two students stated this.",
                "“<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">193</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Continuation of <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.1\">Tosephta 1:1</a>.</i> But the Sages say, not following either one of them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">194</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai.</i>, but what was baked in the oven is obligated, in a pan or a pot is free.”",
                "What is certainly parboiled<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">195</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If it was cooked in boiling water, it is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>? Rebbi Zeïra said, everything the fire burns under. Rebbi Yose said, even if the fire burns under it, since he will use it as dough in the future it is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">196</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Anything that may be used in a bread dough, even if baked completely as, e. g., <i>matzah</i> meal, <i>is subject to</i> ḥallah <i>when first made</i>.</i>. Roasted flour which he used as flour is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he baked it.",
                "“The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the <i>nazir</i>, if he made them for himself they are exempt,” for it is written<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">197</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20</a>. The sentence as addressed to the people, not to the priests of he Temple all whose food is dedicated.</i> “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 <i>ṭevel</i> immediately<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">198</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The same argument is found in <i>Ma‘serot</i> 1:5, cf. there, Note 115, 125.</i>."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. But women who gave to a baker that he should make sour dough for them are free from <i>ḥallah</i> if no individual gave a full measure.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">199</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This Mishnah was explained in <i>Ma‘serot</i> 5:6. The following <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:5:2-4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.5.2-4\">Halakhah 8</a> is identical with Halakhah <i>Ma‘serot</i>5:6 and was explained there, Notes 95–109. It is presupposed that the baker made sour dough for retail sale from more than <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup>/<sub>4</sub> <i>qab</i> of flour.</i><br>A dog biscuit, if the shepherds eat from it, is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">202</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:19\" href=\"/Numbers.15.19\"><i>Num</i>. 15:19</a>): “When <i>you</i> eat from the bread of the Land”, to exclude bread as animal feed from the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> (<i>Sifry Suṭa Šelaḥ</i> 21).</i>, one may use it for <i>eruv</i> and participation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">203</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To allow carrying on the Sabbath in a common courtyard or dead-end street, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 1:4:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.1.4.1\"><i>Demay</i> 1, Notes 192–193</a>.</i>, one may recite the blessing over it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">204</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The blessing “Who produced bread from the earth” appropriate for bread; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 6:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.1\">Mishnah <i>Berakhot</i> 6:1</a>.</i> and one invites<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">205</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To recite grace in a group, which is done only for a meal with bread; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 7:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.7.1.1\">Mishnah <i>Berakhot</i> 7:1</a>.</i> for it, it may be made on a holiday<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">206</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since only human food may be cooked or baked on a holiday, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 12:16\" href=\"/Exodus.12.16\"><i>Ex</i>. 12:16</a>. This rule is not unchallenged; R. Aqiba holds that animal feed also may be cooked on a holiday, <i>Yom Tob</i> 1:11 (fol. 61a), <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Beitzah 21b\" href=\"/Beitzah.21b\">Babli <i>Beẓah</i> 21b</a>.</i>, and a person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">207</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If it is unleavened and from the approved five kinds of flour, it is counted as bread.</i>. If the shepherds do not eat from it, it is not obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>, one may not use it for <i>eruv</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">208</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Animal feed may be human food in an emergency; it is susceptible to impurity even if there is no intent to use it as human food.</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is <i>ṭevel</i>, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not <i>ṭevel</i>. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi 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 <i>ḥallah</i>.” (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 <i>ḥallah</i>. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>.” He said to him, do not answer back about 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two cases have been explained but the original question was not answered.</i>. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.",
                "Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi 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 Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.",
                "Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">201</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is slightly different from the text in <i>Ma‘serot</i> but does not change the meaning.</i> of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become <i>ṭevel</i>, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.",
                "What is dog biscuit? Rebbi 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any he made into cracknels<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">209</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Arabic كعك “ring-shaped pastry; pretzel”; definition of <i>Arukh</i> based on Gaonic sources. R. Joḥanan disagrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish and holds that the composition of the bread does not define its legal status, only the intent of the baker as expressed in the shape he is baking..</i>. We also have stated so<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">210</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:6\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.6\">Tosephta 1:6</a>, in the name of R. Jehudah, reading of the Erfurt ms.</i>: “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">211</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Several loaves connected together; from a Hebrew root למד “to connect”, cf. S. Krauss’s Note to <i>Arukh s. v</i>. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup>למד.</i> it is free.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Ammi in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, even if he formed it as rolls<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">212</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Greek κόλλιξ; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 6:1:25\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.25\"><i>Berakhot</i> 6, Note 103</a>.</i>. But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">213</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is obvious that a shepherd will eat a small cake which he does not have to share with his dog but even from a large loaf he may cut a piece for himself before giving the remainder to the dog. It is difficult to see why the shape of the loaves should have any influence on their legal status.</i>” Explain it if he made it from the start [thinking] that the shepherds should not eat from it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">214</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One disagrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish but also with R. Joḥanan. The status of the bread is determined by the intent of the baker.</i>.",
                "“It may be made on a holiday.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as it was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">215</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosefta <i>Yom Ṭob</i> 2:3, reading of the Erfurt ms. and the Yerushalmi <i>Yom Ṭob</i> 2:1 (fol. 61b). The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Beitzah 17a\" href=\"/Beitzah.17a\">Babli (<i>Beẓah</i> 17a</a>) and the Vienna ms. read אין אופין “one does not bake”. In all Tosephta sources, the second quote is formulated in the masculine but even the Babli quotes it as speaking of a woman cook.</i>: “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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">216</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Latin <i>cucuma, ae, f</i>., “kettle”.</i> with hot water even if one drinks only one cup from it. But baking, she should bake only what she needs.” For it is stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may fill the entire oven with bread because the bread turns out well if the oven is filled.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">217</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the Mishnah here is anonymous and permits the preparation of dog biscuits unconditionally, it determines practice following R. Simeon ben Eleazar [<i>Yom Ṭob</i> 2:1 (fol. 61b), <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Beitzah 17a\" href=\"/Beitzah.17a\">Babli <i>Beẓah</i> 17a</a>.]</i>”",
                "It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed <i>maẓẓah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">218</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The parallel is in <i>Šabbat</i> 13:3 (fol. 14a); in the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sanhedrin 6b\" href=\"/Sanhedrin.6b\">Babli (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 6b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bava Kamma 94a\" href=\"/Bava_Kamma.94a\"><i>Baba Qama</i> 94a</a>) and in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1:1:2-32\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.1.1.2-32\">Yerushalmi <i>Sanhedrin</i> 1:1</a> (fol. 18b) this is a tannaïtic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating <i>maẓẓah</i> on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed.</i>. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Psalms 10:3\" href=\"/Psalms.10.3\"><i>Ps</i>. 10:3</a>): “He who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">219</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; <i>he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal</i>!” The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Sanhedrin 1:1-3\" href=\"/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.1.1-3\">Tosephta (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 1:2</a>) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.</i>” Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">220</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace.</i>? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">221</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty.</i>. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">222</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He accepts R. Jonah’s logic, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:13\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.13\">Note 159</a>.</i>. Rebbi Hila said, (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:34\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.34\"><i>Lev</i>. 27:34</a>): “These are the commandments.” If you did them they way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">223</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He sides with R. Jonah against R. Yose.</i>."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> <i>Ḥallah</i> and heave. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">234</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Most of these rules have been spelled out for heave in Tractate <i>Terumot</i>; the sentence spells out that <i>ḥallah</i> is not only called “heave” (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20-21\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20-21\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20–21</a>) but actually follows all rules of heave.</i> About them one is liable to death<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">235</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 22:3\" href=\"/Leviticus.22.3\"><i>Lev</i>. 22:3</a>.</i> and a fifth<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">236</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Terumot</i> 6:1.</i>, they are forbidden to laymen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">237</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 22:10\" href=\"/Leviticus.22.10\"><i>Lev</i>. 22:10</a>. Since this rule is mentioned after the penalties, it must mean that consumption by laymen of quantities too small to merit judicial attention is still forbidden.</i>, are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">238</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Terumot</i> Chapter 5.</i>, need washing of the hands<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">239</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An extension of the injunction <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 30:17-21\" href=\"/Exodus.30.17-21\"><i>Ex</i>. 30:17–21</a>.</i> (and feet)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">240</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A scribal error in the ms. and some sources dependent on it; cf. <i>The Mishnah with variant readings, Zera‘im</i> II (Jerusalem 1975), p. 325, Note 74.</i> and sundown<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">241</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 22:7\" href=\"/Leviticus.22.7\"><i>Lev</i>. 22:7</a>.</i>, are not taken from pure for impure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">242</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Terumot</i> 2:1.</i> but only from what is earmarked<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">243</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 1:1:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.1.1.3\"><i>Terumot</i> 1:1, Note 6</a>.</i> and completed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">244</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Completely processed; <i>Ma‘serot</i> 1.</i>. He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is <i>ḥallah</i> did not say anything unless he left out a small amount.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, <i>ḥallah</i> might be profane<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">245</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One might think that the root of the word חלה is (rabbinic) חול (Arabic حلّ) “to be permitted, to be profane”.</i>, I would say it is permitted to wait<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">246</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“To roll around”, used to characterize long drawn-out processes. Since <i>ḥallah</i> is invalidated by impurity, it should be delivered to a Cohen at the first opportunity.</i> with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “<i>Ḥallah</i> and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth”.",
                "Ten commandments does a person fulfill before he eats a piece of bread: Do not plough<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">247</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“With ox and donkey together”, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 22:10\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.22.10\"><i>Deut</i>. 22:10</a>.</i>, do now sow<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">248</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“Your field do not sow as <i>kilaim</i>”, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 25:4\" href=\"/Leviticus.25.4\"><i>Lev</i>. 25:4</a>.</i>, do not muzzle<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">249</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“Your ox while threshing”, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 25:4\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.25.4\"><i>Deut</i>. 25:4</a>.</i>, gleanings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">250</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 19:9\" href=\"/Leviticus.19.9\"><i>Lev</i>. 19:9</a>.</i>, forgotten sheaves<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">251</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 24:14\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.24.14\"><i>Deut</i>. 24:14</a>.</i>, and <i>peah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">252</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This paragraph is a truncated quote from <i>Ma‘aser Šeni</i> Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “<i>ḥallah</i> for all,” …</i>, heave, first tithe, second tithe, and <i>ḥallah</i>. Before Rebbi Isaac went to dinner, he spread out his ten fingers and said, I kept ten commandments.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">252</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This paragraph is a truncated quote from <i>Ma‘aser Šeni</i> Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “<i>ḥallah</i> for all,” …</i>“<i>Ḥallah</i> for all, heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:21\" href=\"/Numbers.15.21\"><i>Num</i>. 15:21</a>): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> Foreign produce imported into the Land is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>. If it was exported, Rebbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rebbi 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. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches the ground. Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to hallah which can be eaten with unclean hands<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Pure fruit juice, without addition of water, does not make food susceptible to impurity (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.2.3.1\"><i>Demay</i> 2, Notes 136-137</a>.) Therefore, <i>hallah</i> from such a dough cannot become impure and may be eaten by a pure Cohen without washing of his hands (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 8:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.8.2.2\"><i>Berakhot</i> 8, Note 46</a>)</i>. A woman may sit down naked and separate her <i>hallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And pronounce the benediction needed; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 8:2:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.8.2.6\"><i>Berakhot</i> 8:2, Note 60</a>.</i> because she can cover herself, but a man may not.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> “Foreign produce,” etc. It is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:17\" href=\"/Numbers.15.17\"><i>Num</i>. 15:17</a>) “To the Land into which I am bringing you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“When you come into the Land into which I am bringing you, (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:18\" href=\"/Numbers.15.18\">v. 18</a>) it shall be that on the occasion of your eating from the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.”</i>” There you are obligated, you are not obligated outside the Land. It was stated: These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who is a better authority than R. Meïr. The same statement in <i>Sifry Num</i>. 110. In <i>Ma‘serot</i> 5:4 (Note 83), R. Jehudah’s interpretation of the position of R. Aqiba is presented as genuine.</i> are: Foreign produce imported into the Land, Rebbi Eliezer declares it free but Rebbi Aqiba declares it obligated. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:18\" href=\"/Numbers.15.18\"><i>Num</i>. 15:18</a>) “From the Land’s bread,” not foreign bread. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:17\" href=\"/Numbers.15.17\"><i>Num</i>. 15:17</a>) “To the Land into which I am bringing you.” There you are obligated, both for produce of the Land and foreign produce.”",
                "How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the reason of Rebbi Aqiba, (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:17\" href=\"/Numbers.15.17\"><i>Num</i>. 15:17</a>) “To the Land into which I am bringing you?” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer: Do you not agree that when Israel entered the Land and found there coarse and fine flour<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">R. Simson and R. Solomon ben Adrat read: “(coarse) flour and doughs”. This is from a textual tradition different from our mss.; it is very likely a late change since (a) in talmudic Hebrew, קמח means only “coarse flour”; the re-emergence of the biblical meaning “flour” (irrespective of quality) is definitely Medieval rabbinic; (b) only R. Aqiba (later in this Halakhah and in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:4:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.4.1\">Mishnah 3:5</a>) moves the obligation of ḥallah from kneading the dough to baking it. It is unreasonable to expect R. Eliezer to accept this position.</i> that this was subject to <i>ḥallah</i>? Did it not grow while exempt? He accepted that<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As seen later, without giving up his interpretation of the verses for current practice.</i>. Rebbi Yose said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer and how could the latter accept it? There, before they entered they had inherited it retroactively, as Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: It is not written “to your posterity I shall give” but (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Genesis 15:18\" href=\"/Genesis.15.18\"><i>Gen</i>. 15:18</a>): “to your posterity I gave”, I already gave it.",
                "How does Rebbi Aqiba explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:18\" href=\"/Numbers.15.18\"><i>Num</i>. 15:18</a>) “From the Land’s bread?” About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The imaginary line drawn from the Northernmost point on the coast of the Biblical Land of Israel to the Southernmost, which defines the territorial waters of the Land according to the majority opinion; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6:1:22\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.1.22\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:2, Notes 92–94</a>; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:4:6-8\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.4.6-8\"><i>Ḥallah</i> 4:8</a>. For the role of baking in determining the obligation cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:4:5-7\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.4.5-7\">Halakhah 3:5</a>.</i> it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is exempt if baked by a Gentile, obligated if baked by a Jew.</i>, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by what Rebbi Aqiba objected to Rebbi Eliezer and the latter accepted it.",
                "Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before the ‘<i>omer</i>, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:18\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.18\">Chapter 1, Notes 3–5</a>.</i>? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten <i>maẓẓot</i> in the Passover nights<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But they observed <i>Pesaḥ</i> on the 14th (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Joshua 5:10\" href=\"/Joshua.5.10\"><i>Jos</i>. 5:10</a>); how could they have fulfilled the commandment to eat the meat “with <i>maẓẓot</i> and bitter herbs” when all grain was forbidden as new since the preceding year there could not have been any ‘<i>omer</i> and, according to the argument of the preceding paragraph, the laws were applicable retroactively?</i>! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the position accepted everywhere in the Babli where, however, the principle is severely restricted (<i>Yebamot</i> 3b/4a).</i>. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The disagreement between Rebbis Jonah and Yose is also discussed <i>Yom</i> <i>Ṭov</i> 1:3 (fol. 60b, bottom) and commented upon by <i>Or Zarua</i>‘ vol. 2, #234. The position of R. Yose is not mentioned in the Babli. As <i>Tosaphot</i> note in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Kiddushin 38a\" href=\"/Kiddushin.38a\"><i>Qiddušin</i> 38a</a> (an opinion attributed by <i>Or</i> <i>Zarua</i>‘ to R. Jacob ben Meїr of Provins), the argument of R. Jonah is weak since even according to him, only the first bite of <i>maẓẓah</i> would be permitted as a positive commandment; all further consumption of new bread would have been sinful.</i>? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Any commandment introduced with the remark: “When you <i>come</i> to the Land.”</i> mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6:1:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.1.3\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6, Note 10</a>. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Kiddushin 37a-38a\" href=\"/Kiddushin.37a-38a\">Babli <i>Qiddušin</i> 37a–38a</a>; it is quoted in Yerushalmi ‘<i>Orlah</i> 1:2 (fol. 60d), <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7:4:2-9\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.7.4.2-9\"><i>Soṭah</i> 7:4</a> (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c).</i>. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Joshua 5:11\" href=\"/Joshua.5.11\"><i>Jos</i>. 5:11</a>): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the <i>Pesaḥ</i>,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 33:3\" href=\"/Numbers.33.3\"><i>Num</i>. 33:3</a>): “The day after the <i>Pesaḥ</i>, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Pesaḥ</i> in Biblical texts is only the sacrifice of the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. Only in rabbinic texts does <i>Pesaḥ</i> stand for the holiday of unleavened bread, usually called Passover, starting on the 15th. The objection of R. Abun bar Cahana is anachronistic.</i>?",
                "“If it was exported<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Outside the Land of Israel.</i>, Rebbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rebbi Aqiba declares it free.” They said, Rebbi Eliezer [is explained] from his quote, Rebbi Aqiba from his quote. Rebbi Eliezer from his quote; what is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:18\" href=\"/Numbers.15.18\"><i>Num</i>. 15:18</a>) “From the Land’s bread,” wherever it may be. Rebbi Aqiba from his quote; What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:17\" href=\"/Numbers.15.17\"><i>Num</i>. 15:17</a>) “To the Land into which I am bringing you;” there you are obligated; you are not obligated outside the Land.",
                "The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The disagreement: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 11:24\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.11.24\"><i>Deut</i>. 11:24</a>) “Any place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the masoretic text: כל המקום. כל מקום is in the parallel <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Joshua 1:3\" href=\"/Joshua.1.3\"><i>Jos</i>. 1:3</a> which cannot be the verse quoted here.</i> your foot will tread on shall be yours,” the general statement contains only the detail<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The full verse reads: Any place your foot will tread on shall be yours, from the prairie and the Lebanon, from the river Euphrates to the Western Sea shall be your border region. It is a hermeneutic principle (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 7\" href=\"/Sifra,_Braita_d'Rabbi_Yishmael.7\"><i>Sifra</i>, Introduction, 7</a>) that a general statement followed immediately by a clarification means only what is intended in the clarification. Therefore, “Any place” means only the region described here in general terms and in detail in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 34:1-12\" href=\"/Numbers.34.1-12\"><i>Num</i>. 34:1–12</a>; “river Euphrates” here can only mean the region of Dura Europos, nearest to the Mediterranean.</i>, and following Rebbi Jehudah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who defines the Western Sea as the Atlantic Ocean (at the Straits of Gibraltar) rather than the Mediterranean; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6:1:22\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.1.22\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6, Note 93</a>.</i>. They object to Rebbi Jehudah: If this is about the boundaries of the Land of Israel, is there not written: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Joshua 1:4\" href=\"/Joshua.1.4\"><i>Jos</i>. 1:4</a>) “From the prairie and this Lebanon up to the great river, the Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Hittite settlement in the region after the disappearance of the Hittite empire in central Anatolia.</i> and to the great ocean at sunset shall be your borders.” If it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The general statement “any place”.</i> cannot deal with the border regions of the Land of Israel, consider it for the border regions outside the Land<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That, if conquered, would become part of the Land of Israel.</i>. Then, what David was conquering in Aram of the rivers and Aram Ẓova should be subject to <i>ḥallah</i>! There is a difference, because David was neglecting the border regions of the Land of Israel and conquering the border regions outside the Land<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Northern part of the Land, the region of Phoenicia, as described in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 34:1-12\" href=\"/Numbers.34.1-12\"><i>Num</i>. 34:1–12</a> never was part of David’s empire. Therefore, he was not authorized to conquer the regions East of the promised Land. The argument appears in greater detail in <i>Sifry</i> <i>Deut</i>. 51.</i>.",
                "They wanted to say, according to him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rebbi Ḥananiah (?, probably Ḥaninah), who later in the paragraph holds that all the land conquered by Jeroboam II has the status of land conquered by Joshua.</i> who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rebbi Mana I, later in this paragraph.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even R. Mana will agree that under Joshua, the Land became obligated immediately upon being taken.</i>. It is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"II Kings 14:25\" href=\"/II_Kings.14.25\"><i>2K</i>. 14:25</a>): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lebweh in the Beqaa valley in Lebanon, the Northernmost city in Solomon’s kingdom.</i> 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.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An early Galilean Amora, perhaps called Isidor, possibly a student of Jehudah, the son of the elder R. Ḥiyya.</i> stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which, therefore, did not acquire the status of “Land of Israel.” Since R. Mana is identified as “the other”, R. Ḥananiah (Ḥaninah) must be the author of the first opinion.</i>.",
                "Earth from outside the Land which came into Syria<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The land temporarily conquered by David outside the biblical borders; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 7:5:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.7.5.6\"><i>Peah</i> 7, Note 119</a>. Since most agricultural rules of the Land held in Syria by rabbinic decree, Syria is not “outside the Land.” But it is not part of the Land either.</i> becomes like Syria. Coming from there to here it becomes obligated.",
                "“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Babli it is held that if R. Jehudah asks in the Mishnah, when is this?, he does not disagree with the anonymous Tanna but explains the latter’s position (<i>Eruvin</i> 81a–82b, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sanhedrin 24b\" href=\"/Sanhedrin.24b\"><i>Sanhedrin</i> 24b</a>). This is not the position of the Yerushalmi; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 7:1:18\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.7.1.18\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 7, Note 90</a>.</i> since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 5:4:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Beitzah.5.4.1\">Mishnah <i>Beẓah</i> 5:4</a>: “If somebody borrows vessels before the holiday, they follow the feet of the borrower, on the holiday, the feet of the lender. Similarly, if a woman borrowed from another spices, water, or salt, they follow the feet of both of them. Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, for water has no consistency.” If both the borrower and the lender made an <i>eruv</i> (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 8:4:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.8.4.4\"><i>Peah</i> 8, Note 56</a>), the borrowed things can only be moved inside the territory accessible to both of them. R. Jehudah exempts water since it is permitted on a holiday to drink water from a brook; that water was outside the permitted domain when the holiday started.</i>, as it has no consistency<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this interpretation, the water is disregarded and the wooden ship is considered as lying on the gound.</i>. Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to R. Ḥaggai, the condition that the boat touch ground seems unintelligible.</i>? 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 7:6:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.7.6.3\"><i>Kilaim</i> 7:6, Note 84</a>.</i>: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Without any biblical basis. The flower pot is of clay which may be impermeable. Plants growing in a flower pot are considered growing on the ground only if the flower pot has a hole letting the earth in the pot absorb moisture from the ground. A wooden ship touching ground can always be said to be connected to the earth under it; it might only be compared to a flower pot with a hole.</i>, its heave does not create <i>dema‘</i> and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi 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 Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The flower pot with a hole permanently fixed on pegs above ground is obligated, the ship anchored but not touching ground is exempt.</i> and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Halakhah discusses the statement of the Mishnah: “Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to ḥallah which can be eaten with unclean hands”.</i>: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota, as we have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ṭevul Yom</i> 3:6: “Dough which was prepared by fluids and kneaded with fruit juice, if a <i>ṭevul yom</i> touches it, Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota …” The Mishnah deals with heave in case the grain or the flour was prepared for impurity by contact with one of the fluids that activate impurity (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.2.3.1\"><i>Demay</i> 2, Notes 136–137</a>). The <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.2.2\"><i>Terumot</i> 5, Note 68</a>) makes heave unusable by his touch; he has no influence on the purity status of profane food.</i>: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota says in the name of Rebbi Joshua, he made everything unusable. But Rebbi Aqiba says in the latter’s name, he made unusable only the place where he touched.” Rebbi 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 are not clear to prepare<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Fruit juice clearly does not prepare for impurity according to everybody. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, R. Eleazar ben Jehudah holds that fruit juice keeps the dough together and it becomes unusable if part of it is unusable. R. Aqiba holds that fruit juices cannot have any influence on the status of purity; one disregards the fact that the dough now forms a solid mass.</i>. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is everybody’s opinion. Even though Rebbi Aqiba says there that fruit juices have no clear connection with impurity, he agrees here that fruit juices are clearly for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For <i>ḥallah</i>, R. Aqiba holds that anything used as bread falls under the rules of bread.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Nothing is clear except the seven fluids<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The 7 fluids enumerated in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4\" href=\"/Mishnah_Makhshirin.6.4\">Mishnah <i>Makhširin</i> 6:4</a>: Dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, bee’s honey.</i>. Rebbi Yose asked: Was this said for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Does R. Joshua ben Levi disagree with the Mishnah and hold that only dough kneaded with one of the 7 fluids is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>?</i> or for impurity? If you say for <i>ḥallah</i>, so much more for impurity. If you say for impurity, then not for <i>ḥallah</i>. It is obvious for Rebbi Jonah that it had been said for <i>ḥallah</i>, so much more for impurity. Rebbi Jonah sticks to his opinion, for Rebbi Jonah stated from Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi stated in Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s name, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon said, it is stated here<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20</a>.</i> <i>ḥallah</i>, and it is stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 8:26\" href=\"/Leviticus.8.26\"><i>Lev</i>. 8:26</a>. About the theory of invariable meaning of words, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.1.3\"><i>Kilaim</i>8, Note 4</a>.</i>, a <i>ḥallah</i> of oil cake. Since the <i>ḥallah</i> mentioned there is prepared with oil, so the <i>ḥallah</i> prepared here must be prepared with oil. And oil is one of the seven fluids.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 8:2:2-13\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.8.2.2-13\"><i>Berakhot</i> 8:2</a>; explained there in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:17-3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.1.17-3.1\">Notes 52–71</a>.</i> Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For <i>ḥallah</i> and for washing one’s hands, he has to walk up to four <i>mil</i>. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way.",
                "How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them? Let us hear it from this (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.2.4\">Mishnah <i>Ḥallah</i> 2:3</a>): “A woman may sit down naked and separate her <i>ḥallah</i>” 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. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts; for the second he takes and may not interrupt.” What does he interrupt? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac asked: “He takes and interrupts” and you say it is conditional? One requires four <i>mil</i> and you say it is conditional?",
                "Rebbi 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.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Similar statements in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Berakhot 24a\" href=\"/Berakhot.24a\">Babli <i>Berakhot</i> 24a</a>.</i> This means that buttocks are no sex organs. That is, for benedictions<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Benedictions and prayers may not be said in an indecent state. But since a woman may sit down flat on the ground with her legs tightly together, she may recite the benediction for <i>ḥallah</i> while naked. There is nowhere a prohibition for a woman to nurse her baby while others are present.</i>, but to look at them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Except one’s own wife.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Song of Songs 2:14\" href=\"/Song_of_Songs.2.14\">Babli quotes here <i>Cant</i>. 2:14</a>: “For your voice is sweet and your looks refreshing.” Neither of the verses prove what is required.</i>? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jeremiah 3:9\" href=\"/Jeremiah.3.9\"><i>Jer</i>. 3:9</a>) “From the sound of her whoring the land became polluted, etc.”",
                "Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Berakhot 25\" href=\"/Berakhot.25\"><i>Berakhot</i> (Babli 25a/b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:4:5-7\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.4.5-7\">Yerushalmi 3:5</a>) it is stated that the <i>Šema‘</i> may not be recited within 4 cubits of any excrement. There are no separate rules there for prayer.</i>, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To defecate.</i> and did not cleanse himself, it is forbidden. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi 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."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single <i>qabim</i> and not make it in impurity. Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single <i>qabim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Each separate dough being made from less than the minimum amount subject to <i>hallah</i>. (The mss. of the Maimonides tradition, including the autograph ms., read קביים \"<i>two qab</i>\". This forces Maimonides to declare that the measures of <i>qab</i> mentioned in this Tractate are non-standard.).</i>, since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single <i>qabim</i> have no named <i>hallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first Tanna would abolish any mention of hallah in impurity since he holds that it is sinful to cause food to be burned just for the formal observance of a commandment (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:9\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.9\">Tosephta 1:9</a>). In <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:1:2-9\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.1.2-9\">Halakhah 3:1</a>, the Yerushalmi decides practice following R. Aqiba.</i>.If somebody makes his dough single <i>qabim</i> and they are touching one another<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The different loaves touch one another in the oven.</i>, they are free from <i>ḥallah</i> unless they are biting<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The baked loaves cling to one another and cannot be cleanly separated.</i>. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the basket contains more than 5/4<i>qab</i> of bread from one bake run, it is obligated for <i>ḥallah.</i></i>",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> How is this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This refers to the statement in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.2.2\">Halakhah 3 (Note 44</a>) that for <i>ḥallah</i> one does not have to go more than four <i>mil</i> (about one hour) to immerse himself in a <i>miqweh</i> to remove one’s impurity.</i>? Less that four <i>mil</i> he should make it in purity, four <i>mil</i> he sould make single <i>qabim</i>, or four <i>mil</i> he should make it in purity, more than four <i>mil</i> he sould make single <i>qabim</i>? Let us hear from the following, since Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, for example Caesarea<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is difficult to understand since Caesarea (Philippi) is on the Jordan. Probably it means that from the farthest outskirts of the city to the <i>miqweh</i> it might be four <i>mil</i>.</i>. Is Caesarea not four <i>mil</i>? That means, four <i>mil</i> he should make it in purity, more than four <i>mil</i> he sould make single <i>qabim</i>. Rebbi Ammi instructed in Kefar Sammai<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Also called <i>Kefar Simai</i>, on the road from Sepphoris to Acco. Since this is reported as an actual instruction given in the third generation of Amoraїm, in the middle of the third Century, it follows that people were careful to remove any impurity on their bodies before making dough even if they could not remove the impurity caused by contact or closeness to the dead, in the absence of ashes of the red heifer.</i> to make a large dough in impurity. Is that not less than four <i>mil</i>? Since a brook interrupts it is as if there were four <i>mil</i>. This teaching follows Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single <i>qabim</i>. It was a large dough and it would have been easier for him to walk a distance than to make it single <i>qabim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The instruction of R. Ammi does not prove that practice follows R. Aqiba.</i>",
                "The arguments of Rebbi Aqiba are switched. There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.2.1\">Mishnah 4:4</a>: “If somebody took <i>ḥallah</i> from [a dough being only] one <i>qab</i>, R. Aqiba says it is <i>ḥallah</i>, but the Sages say it is not.” Here, he declares that a dough of one <i>qab</i> is exempt.</i>, he says one takes <i>ḥallah</i> from a <i>qab</i>, and here he says so? There after the fact, here before the fact.",
                "Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 48b\" href=\"/Pesachim.48b\">Babli, <i>Pesaḥim</i> 48b</a>, this is the position of R. Joshua ben Levi explaining <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.2.1\">Mishnah 4</a>.</i>: Only if they were biting<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The baked loaves cling to one another and cannot be cleanly separated.</i>. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Babli, <i>loc. cit</i>., this may be the position of R. Eliezer and the other position that of R. Joshua.</i>, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi 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, e. g., to Babylonian bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rashi explains in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 48b\" href=\"/Pesachim.48b\"><i>Pesaḥim</i> 48b</a> that they are large and circular; they will always bite in the oven and have to be broken apart to be put into a bag.</i>."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> If somebody gives <i>ḥallah</i> from flour it is not <i>ḥallah</i> and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>; the flour, if it is a full measure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The flour given as <i>ḥallah</i> measures more than 5/4 <i>qab</i>.</i>, is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i> and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">קבש stands for כבש, showing that the ק had lost its guttural sound. He took and ate it without it being given to him to show that it had no holiness.</i> it. He said to them, he destroyed himself<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He sinned.</i> and put others in order<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Others who follow his teaching will not sin since they would follow rabbinical instructions; their sins in this matter will all be charged to the rabbi who gave the wrong instructions.</i>.<br>Five quarters<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The measure involved is discussed in the Halakhah.</i> of coarse flour<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The same holds for fine flour which never contains bran. It is stated here that milled grain is called “coarse flour” before being sifted.</i> are obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Usually the bran is sifted out before the flour is used for bread dough. Since normally bran is not returned, the rules for flour mixed with bran are like those for flour mixed with rice flour.</i>, it is free.<br>The rate<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If a dough is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>, the amount to be taken is 1/24 by rabbinic decree. Since <i>ḥallah</i> is a heave, it has no lower limit in biblical law. The rabbinic amount is more than twice the rabbinic rate of heave which is one in 50.</i> of <i>ḥallah</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In contrast to the baker she has no store but bakes at home to sell out of her basket on the market.</i> who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case, the <i>ḥallah</i> must be burned and there is no reason to give the Cohen a larger portion. Today, when all dough is impure, these rabbinic rules have been disestablished and biblical law reinstated.</i> by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded.<br>Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is forbidden for heave, <i>Terumot</i> 2:2.</i>. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for <i>ḥallah</i> from dough from which <i>ḥallah</i> was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since food less in volume than an egg cannot transmit impurity (<i>Terumot</i> 5:1), the two doughs can be put in the same vessel to be earmarked for heave together (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 2:1:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.2.1.3\"><i>Terumot</i> 2, Note 6</a>). The Mishnah is quoted in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sotah 30\" href=\"/Sotah.30\">Babli <i>Soṭah</i>30a/b</a>; there a version is quoted which has “gives the volume of an egg”. The explanation is that the impure dough is impure in the first degree (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 8:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.8.2.2\"><i>Berakhot</i> Chapter 8, Note 46</a>). It makes the dough in between impure in the second degree. The pure dough, while <i>ṭevel</i>, is under the rules of profane food for which no third degree exists. Therefore, the dough in the middle cannot transmit impurity to the pure dough irrespective of size. This is the position taken by Maimonides in his Code (<i>Bikkurim</i> 7:12).</i> so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> “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 Tannaїm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since anyhow he ate. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.",
                "Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian <i>qab</i> is obligated for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is larger than the standard <i>qab</i> of the Mishnah. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Eduyot 1:2\" href=\"/Mishnah_Eduyot.1.2\">Mishnah <i>Idiut</i> 1:2</a> states that originally the amount was fixed at 1.5 <i>qab</i>. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Eduyot 1:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Eduyot.1.1\">Tosephta <i>Idiut</i> 1:2</a> reads: “The Sages estimated 7 + something <i>qabim</i> which are 5 quarters in Sepphoris or 1.5 <i>qab</i> in Jerusalem.” According to <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Rashi on Pesachim 48b\" href=\"/Rashi_on_Pesachim.48b\">Rashi (<i>Pesaḥim</i> 48b</a>), Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (<i>Idiut</i> 1:2) the argument is the following: Since <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:21\" href=\"/Numbers.15.21\"><i>Num</i>. 15:21–21</a> speaks about “the beginning of your doughs,” the reference is to the size of the doughs made in the desert, which was 1 ‘<i>omer</i> of manna. The ‘<i>omer</i> is defined in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 16:36\" href=\"/Exodus.16.36\"><i>Ex</i>. 16:36</a> as a tenth of an <i>ephah</i> which is 3 <i>seah</i> or 18 <i>qab</i>, 72 quarter qabim. This makes the ‘omer 7.2 biblical quarter <i>qabim</i>. The Jerusalem small measure is defined as 1/6 larger than the biblical, the Sepphoris 1/6 larger than the Jerusalem. This makes the <i>ephah</i> 60 Jerusalem quarters and 50 Sepphoris ones and the amount subject to <i>ḥallah</i> is 7.2 biblical quarters = 6 Jerusalem quarters = 5 Sepphoris quarters.<br>Maimonides defines the <i>qab</i>(Sepphoris) as 4×4×10.8 digits. The digit is 1/24 of a cubit normally taken to be 55 cm; this makes the <i>qab</i> 2101 cm<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup> = 2.1 liter and the amount of dry flour so that a dough made from it should be subject to <i>ḥallah</i> equal to 2.65 liter. A Jerusalem <i>qab</i> would then be 2.52 liter and it is possible that the Tiberian measure was equal to the Jerusalem one and R. Yannai’s statement errs on the side of caution, in the spirit of the last sentence of this paragraph.</i>. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Make batches of 4 quarters of dough and separate the batches so they will never touch. Since fried dough is not subject to <i>ḥallah</i> by biblical law, it is preferable to prepare the dough so the question of <i>ḥallah</i> should never arise.</i>. Could he say to him, three and separate<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why did he say “make four” without saying what he meant? Could it be four <i>qabim</i> or three <i>qabim</i> or maybe three quarters of a <i>qab</i>?</i>? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, <i>qabim</i> in their places are measured by quarters<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In his place, the <i>qab</i> was never used as a commercial measure; the standard was the quarter of about 0.5 liter.</i>. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This refers to the last sentence of the Mishnah.</i> Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As noted at the end, mixing the bran in again was not usually done in talmudic times.</i>. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.1\">Tosephta 2:1</a>: If somebody makes dough from grain and rice, it is never subject to <i>ḥallah</i> unless it contain the full measure of grain. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, bran has the status of non-cereal.</i> it is never subject to <i>ḥallah</i> unless it contain the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He is not otherwise mentioned.</i> in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A different text in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:7\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.7\">Tosephta 1:7</a>. In <i>Sifry Num</i>. 110 there is another version, based on <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:21\" href=\"/Numbers.15.21\"><i>Num</i>. 15:21</a>, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In <i>Sifry</i>, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows <i>ḥallah</i> to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60.</i>: “Rebbi Jehudah said, why did they say the private person one in 24 but the baker one in 48? Because the baker is generous<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of <i>lectio difficilior</i> speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on <i>Sifry</i> to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.<br>In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the <i>ḥallah</i> which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community.</i> with his dough but the private person is stingy<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A different text in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:7\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.7\">Tosephta 1:7</a>. In <i>Sifry Num</i>. 110 there is another version, based on <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:21\" href=\"/Numbers.15.21\"><i>Num</i>. 15:21</a>, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In <i>Sifry</i>, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows <i>ḥallah</i> to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60.</i> with his dough. But the Sages say, not because of this category or reason, but (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:28\" href=\"/Numbers.18.28\"><i>Num.</i> 18:28</a>): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” they should be given to the priest in his status as priest<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Compare <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.1.6\"><i>Terumot</i> 5, Note 22</a>.</i>. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The percentages given to the Cohen must be larger than the percentages fixed for heave since dough is perishable and <i>ḥallah</i> must be delivered immediately whereas heave of agricultural produce can be accumulated until it reaches the required amounts.</i>.",
                "But did we not state: “If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Then he bakes a large quantity and the argument of the Sages does not apply.</i>, one in 24?” Not to make a distinction in doughs of a private person. But did we not state: “And also a woman<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">She bakes at home and by the preceding argument should not change her rate of 1 in 24.</i> who makes to sell on the market, one in 48?” When she makes it for herself, she is stingy<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of <i>lectio difficilior</i> speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on <i>Sifry</i> to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.<br>In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the <i>ḥallah</i> which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community.</i> with her dough; when she makes to sell on the market she is generous<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of <i>lectio difficilior</i> speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on <i>Sifry</i> to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.<br>In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the <i>ḥallah</i> which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community.</i> with her dough. Rebbi<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Probably of a name is missing.</i> said, the Mishnah speaks about one<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The woman selling bread on the market gets the barker’s rate only if she regularly bakes for the market. If she does it only occasionally, she is held to the rate of 1 in 24 in accordance with the explanation given for the infrequent wedding feast.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If she works only occasionally for sale, she should not be invited to give less for her domestic bread.</i>”.",
                "Does the house not combine them together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why does R. Eliezer need the expedient with food less than the volume of an egg? Could one not say that the house is a container which earmarks the two doughs together?</i>? 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 <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti read: ועיסתה תחילה “if the dough is [impure in the] first degree.”</i>. But a dough of secondary [impurity] has no [invalidating] touch for <i>ṭevel</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A dough impure in the second degree which touches profane pure dough does not transmit impurity. This proves that <i>ṭevel</i> goes under the rules of profane food; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Note 96</a>.</i>.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This paragraph is from Terumot 2:1 and explained there, Note 35-44.</i> It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi 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 <i>fluid</i> 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?]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This sentence is in <i>Terumot</i> and here in the Rome ms., missing in the Leyden ms.</i> Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <i>Terumot</i>: “Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” In view of the penultimate sentence, the formulation here is preferable.</i>. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the <i>Terumot</i> text; name missing here in both mss.</i> and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> One may eat a snack<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Without taking <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> from the dough until it was rolled<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After kneading it was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave.</i> if wheat dough or compacted<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Barley dough does not hold together well and after shaping it has to be squeezed together to close the holes.</i> 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 <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving <i>ḥallah</i> legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. In <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 3:3:2-11\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.3.3.2-11\"><i>Pesaḥim</i> 3:3</a> (fol. 30a), R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give <i>ḥallah</i> from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing.</i> on condition that there be five quarters of flour<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the reading of the Yerushalmi mss., the Munich ms. of the Babli, and a number of good Mishnah mss. In this version, at least 5 quarters of flour have to be wetted before the possibility of giving <i>ḥallah</i> starts. The Maimonides autograph, a number of important Mishnah mss., and an Amora in the Halakhah read: on condition that there <i>not</i> be five quarters of flour, meaning that the flour which is still dry cannot be of the minimal volume which triggers an independent duty of <i>ḥallah</i> since in that case, the <i>ḥallah</i> taken would not free the dough made later from the dry flour. The early Medieval authors all report that there are two conflicting readings, both of which seem to be genuine.</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Using the mixture of flour and water as a cereal for a sit-down meal.</i> it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from <i>ḥallah.</i> Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference is to Ma‘serot 4:3, Notes 61 ff. where in a similar case it is stated that taking food not fully processed will never create an obligation of heave if the remainders can be returned to be processed further.</i> what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading of the Rome ms. and the text in <i>Ma‘serot</i>. Missing in the Leyden ms.</i> in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become <i>ṭevel,</i> in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.",
                "But that<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This does not refer to the Mishnah here but to <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.2.4\">Mishnah 2:3</a> which is formulated: If somebody <i>cannot</i> make his dough in purity. This implies that if he is able to make the dough in purity he may not make it in small loaves.</i> 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 <i>qab</i> sized<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unless the total volume of the flour used for all loaves is less than the minimum 5 quarters.</i>.",
                "For all other things<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All flour other than wheat and barley.</i> one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, after what do you go, after rolling or after compacting? Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: <i>ḥallah</i> in a form<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This translation is tentative since גבלול appears only here. The meaning is guessed from rabbinic Hebrew גבל “to form into dough,” Arabic جبل “to form”.</i>, after it was rolled for wheat flour or compacted for barley flour. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, after if was well formed. Do they differ? One is for practice, the other for study matters<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since none of the authors of religious codes quotes this paragraph, it is difficult to ascertain which opinion is the one that should guide practice.</i>.",
                "It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:12\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.12\">Tosephta 1:12</a>, speaking of a convert who accepts Judaism while making a dough.</i>. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20</a>) “You shall lift it like the heave of the threshing floor.” 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? Rebbi Mattaniah: It is compared to heave only for doughmaking<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num.</i> 15:20</a> defines <i>ḥallah</i> as “start of your doughs” and not “start of your breads”.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that legal <i>ḥallah</i> can be taken as soon as the flour is moistened. R. Simeon ben Laqish must read with Maimonides that <i>not</i> 5 quarters are still dry. The Mishnah then does not imply that 5 quarters of flour are already moistened; one might object that then there is no obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.2.1\">Mishnah 4:4</a>.</i>: “If somebody took <i>ḥallah</i> from a single <i>qab</i>, Rebbi Aqiba says it is <i>ḥallah</i>, but the Sages say it is no <i>ḥallah</i>.” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If R. Aqiba validates <i>ḥallah</i> which was taken against the rules, it does not mean he will accept that one may start with the intention of giving <i>ḥallah</i> as long as the dough does not contain five quarters.</i>? Here we deal with the start. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rebbi Aqiba<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.1.1\">Mishnah 3:1</a> cannot be derived from 4:4 but the Sages who declare <i>ḥallah</i> from less than 5 quarters invalid cannot accept <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.1.1\">Mishnah 3:1</a> (in the Maimonides version.)</i>.",
                "Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:20\" href=\"/Numbers.15.20\"><i>Num</i>. 15:20</a>) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Rome ms. reads תני instead of דתני. In that case, the Tosephta is not quoted by R. Joḥanan to bolster his case but by the editors in order to question his argument. Then one should read “… your doughs.” It was stated …</i>: <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Terumot (Lieberman) 5:15\" href=\"/Tosefta_Terumot_(Lieberman).5.15\">Tosephta <i>Terumot</i>5:15</a>, quoted in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:3\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.7.7.3\"><i>Demay</i> 7:9, Note 137</a>.</i><i>Ṭevel</i> tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To laymen.</i> in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since heave of the tithe does not have to be earmarked, if the Levite has other tithe from which heave of the tithe was not yet taken, he can include the heave for the mixed tithe in the heave he gives from his other tithe and make the mixture profane.</i>. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Heave cannot be removed unless declared as such, even if only implicitly by saying, for example: Heave shall be in the Northern part of the grain heap. “Lifting” a replacement of the impure heave was explained in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 4:6:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.6.1\"><i>Terumot</i> 4, Note 62</a>.</i>.” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An Amora of the second generation, living near Bet Shean.</i> in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wives or unmarried daughters of Cohanim. Since they had to watch over purity in their homes, they were called to take <i>ḥallah</i> in purity for lay wives.</i> implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is <i>ḥallah</i> for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the text of the declaration it is clear that <i>ḥallah</i> is taken at the very first moment, when there still is some flour not moistened, the sour dough not thoroughly worked in, and some pieces being separated. Flatbread in Arabic is قُرص.</i>. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as <i>ḥallah</i> except what might be impure in it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If practice would follow R. Eleazar ben Arakh, the Cohenet should lift an amount corresponding to the impurity and then take pure <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He said the same as R. Samuel from Cappadocia but did not mention the latter’s name.</i>, one said in one case there is enough to lift<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Then one follows R. Eleazar ben Arakh.</i>, in the other case there is not enough to lift<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Then one formulates the declaration following the Cohanot.</i>; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One has to follow the Cohanot since in this case even R. Eleazar ben Arakh would not permit taking from the dough without their special declaration.</i>.",
                "Rebbi 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 <i>ḥallah</i> may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Fridays every woman will bake more than the minimal amount. Therefore, at the moment the Cohenet takes the dough for <i>ḥallah</i>, it becomes <i>ḥallah</i>. But during the week, if the amount barely is obligated, the piece taken by the Cohenet is exempt because it is less than 5 quarters. Therefore, if all flour is kneaded and the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> established, designating now that extra piece as <i>ḥallah</i> would be satisfying one’s obligation with exempt food and this is forbidden for all types of heave.</i>? Rebbi 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 <i>ḥallah</i>. If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure <i>ṭevel</i> is mixed with <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the declaration by the Cohenet excludes any impurity in the dough taken for <i>ḥallah</i>, that part remains <i>ṭevel</i>. Since it is impure and a small quantity, it makes the <i>ḥallah</i> dough forbidden for everybody, including the Cohen.</i>. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A part carefully made in purity by the Cohenet. R. Jonah must hold that the prohibition to give heave from exempt food is purely rabbinical and can be voided if there is no other way out.</i> for what is obligated to avoid impure <i>ṭevel</i> mixed with <i>ḥallah</i>. Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">R. Samuel ben Eudaimon disagrees with the entire discussion, both by R. Yose and R. Jonah. Since at the moment of declaration nothing happens, all remains <i>ṭevel</i> at this moment. If the kneaded dough reaches critical mass, the <i>ḥallah</i> becomes dedicated retroactively; there is no <i>ṭevel</i> and no exempt dough remaining. Therefore, the declaration of the Cohenet is valid both on a regular weekday and on a Friday.</i>.",
                "Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is Maimonides’s reading in the Mishnah. Since we have decided that <i>ḥallah</i> can be given conditionally, the unmixed flour mentioned by the Cohanot should not be limited.</i>” Rebbi<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Either a name has disappeared from both mss. or this is Rebbi’s reason to change the prior formulation of the Mishnah to the text transmitted in both Talmudim.</i> said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> If the dough became <i>dema‘</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Heave fell in the dough and there is not enough profane dough to lift the heave. Then the entire dough may be eaten only by Cohanim (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 4:1:9\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.4.1.9\"><i>Demay</i> 4, Note 27</a>).</i> before it was rolled<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After kneading it was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave.</i> it is exempt since <i>dema‘</i> is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.1\">Mishnah 1:4</a>.</i> If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the dough later becomes obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>, the possible impurity already exists while the entire dough is profane. There is no prohibition to cause impurity to profane food (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Niddah 6b\" href=\"/Niddah.6b\">Babli <i>Niddah</i> 6b</a>). The <i>ḥallah</i> will be forbidden and has to be burned, as if it were certainly impure.</i> but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">At the moment the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> was created, the dough and its <i>ḥallah</i> were pure. If later <i>ḥallah</i> is taken, it is <i>ḥallah</i> which may be impure. It is forbidden to the Cohanim but it is also forbidden to directly make it impure (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:2-4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.1.7.2-4\"><i>Pesahim</i> 1:7</a>).</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that <i>ṭevel</i> is counted with profane food<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The difference between profane food and heave in matters of ritual impurity is that profane food can be impure in the first and second degrees but heave also in the third (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 5:1:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.5.1.4\"><i>Berakhot</i> 5, Note 19</a>). It is stated that <i>ṭevel</i>, produce under the obligation of heave, cannot become impure in the third degree.</i> and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If there is a doubt that <i>ṭevel</i> may contain impurity in the second degree, it can no longer be a source of heave. Then the remainder of the profane food should be of third degree, i. e., pure and acceptable for heave.</i>. This is difficult; if <i>ṭevel</i> is counted with<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading מנינו instead of ממנו; originally the left stroke of מ was very short. The Rome ms. has a shorter and better version: אִם פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִּין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה יְהֵא מִנְיָנוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. “If it invalidates profane food so that it cannot be made into heave, it should be counted as heave.”</i> profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Ṭevul Yom</i> 4:1.</i>: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a <i>ṭevul yom</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.2.2\"><i>Terumot</i> 5, Note 68</a>. A <i>Ṭevul</i> <i>Yom</i>, a formerly severely impure person after immersion in a <i>miqweh</i> but before sundown, is impure in the second degree by biblical standards. Unwashed hands of an otherwise pure person are impure in the second degree by post-biblical, rabbinic and Sadducee, standards.</i> 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 <i>ṭevel</i> is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here, in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.2.1\">Mishnah 2</a>.</i>: “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 Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.2.4\">Mishnah 2:3</a>. Rav Sheshet holds that the Mishnah here is R. Aqiba’s but not the Mishnah <i>Ṭevul</i> <i>Yom</i> 4:1.</i>, he should make it in impurity and not make it single <i>qab</i>. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single <i>qabim</i>. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:11\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.11\">Tosephta 1:11</a>: “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; its <i>ḥallah</i> is suspended {it cannot be eaten since it may be impure, and it cannot be burned since it may be pure.} What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for <i>ḥallah</i> {involving third degree impurity which is inactive for profane food.} Similarly, produce for which a doubt of impurity arose before it was fully processed {before any obligation of heave} should be processed in impurity but after it was fully processed it must be processed in purity; its heave is suspended. What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for heave.”</i>: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single <i>qabim</i> in cases of doubt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The amount is irrelevant for heave. Therefore, R. Zeïra’s argument is irrelevant.</i>? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He claims priority over R. Ḥiyya bar Abun.</i>. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his <i>ṭevel</i> impure by biblical standards as it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:8\" href=\"/Numbers.18.8\"><i>Num</i>. 18:8</a>): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, <i>ṭevel</i> does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:28\" href=\"/Numbers.18.28\"><i>Num</i>. 18:28</a>): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The priest is obligated to consume heave in purity. Since the heave in question may not be consumed, it is not destined for the priest.</i>, you may make it impure."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> 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. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This second part of the Mishnah is also in Mishnah <i>Peah</i> 4:5; the principle is explained there, Notes 76–81. Since Temple property is common and not individual property, the duties of <i>ḥallah</i> and heave, addressed to individuals, are not existing for the Temple.</i> 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.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The entire Halakhah appears also in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 4:5:2-6:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.5.2-6.1\"><i>Peah</i> 4:5, Notes 82–96</a>.</i> And why is it stated twice? Rebbi Huna, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <i>Peah</i> correctly: Bar Pedaiah.</i> Pedaiah: One for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abba and the colleagues. The colleagues say, one for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Abba explains: At <i>Ḥallah</i> for smoothing, at <i>Peah</i> for one third.",
                "Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after 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, Rebbi 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 Rebbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> A dough<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Flour or dough not fully mixed. Property of the Non-Jew is not subject to Jewish ritual law.</i> which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>. 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 <i>ḥallah</i> if the Jew’s part is less than the measure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the Jew contributed less than 5 quarters of flour.</i>.<br>If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While he was undergoing the conversion ceremony, his servants made dough in his house.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As penalty if the <i>ḥallah</i> was misappropriated; cf. Mishnah <i>Terumot</i>6:1.</i> because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The question is whether R. Aqiba disagrees with all preceding statements that designate rolling (of wheat dough, or compacting of barley dough) as final processing or he holds that only baking is final processing for the proselyte.</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> What is the difference between this and a dough of <i>annona?</i> Is the latter not obligated for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:4\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.4\">Tosephta 1:4</a>: “An <i>annona</i> dough (which has to be delivered to the army; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:1:18\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.1.1.18\"><i>Peah</i> 1, Note 85</a>) is obligated since one is responsible until it is delivered.” The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 6a\" href=\"/Pesachim.6a\">Babli (<i>Pesaḥim</i> 6a</a>) considers the possibility that delivery of <i>annona</i> may be replaced by a cash payment. In that case, the <i>annona</i> dough is clearly the Jew’s and is not necessarily made exclusively for the Gentile government. This seems not to be the position of the Yerushalmi; it might indicate a difference between Roman and Persian administrative practices.</i>? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Medieval authors (e. g., R. Simson, R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, R. Nissim Gerondi) read: “Maybe the Gentile decides not to take it.” It is also the reading of the ms. of R. S. Cirillo; this leads one to suspect that the reading is an attempt at harmonization with the Babli (Note 59).<br>In a second opinion, the Babli holds that <i>ḥallah</i> of the <i>annona</i> is purely rabbinical since people might think that the person baking does not give <i>ḥallah</i> for his own bread. This is not the Yerushalmi’s general attitude; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:1-11\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.2.1.1-11\"><i>Kilaim</i> 2, Notes 34–40</a>.</i>. But here it depends on the latter’s opinion.",
                "Rebbi Jehudah stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:3\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.3\">Tosephta 1:3</a>, an anonymous statement.</i>: “If the inventory belongs to a Jew but Gentile workers make it, it is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>. If the inventory belongs to a Gentile and Jewish workers make it, it is not subject to <i>ḥallah.”</i> Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated this: “A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.”",
                "Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a <i>qab</i> here, a <i>qab</i> there, and a Gentile’s <i>qab</i> in the middle<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why should the dough of a Jew made in partnership with a Gentile ever be subject to <i>ḥallah</i>? In <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.2.1\">Mishnah 4:3</a> it is stated that if a dough is made in three parts of one <i>qab</i> each, two of wheat and one of rice, and the rice dough separates the two pieces of wheat dough, there is no obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> since the exempt rice prevents the two wheat doughs from being counted together. Similarly, the exempt flour belonging to the Gentile should prevent the Jew’s flour from being counted as an entity.</i>? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?",
                "There, we have stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Chullin 10:4\" href=\"/Mishnah_Chullin.10.4\">Mishnah <i>Ḥulin</i> 10:4</a>. The chapter deals with the obligatory gifts to the Cohen from profane slaughter: forearm, jawbone and first stomach (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:3\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.3\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:3</a>). These gifts are totally profane; no holiness is attached to them at any moment. Therefore, a Cohen who claims these gifts would have to prove by legal standards that the gifts are due. Because of the nature of the doubt, this proof is precluded.</i>: “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. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the duty of <i>ḥallah</i> is questionable, he suggests that the proselyte sell his <i>ḥallah</i> to a Cohen.</i>! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the case of profane slaughter, why can we not require that the Cohen’s gifts be sold exclusively to Cohanim?</i> and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, <i>ḥallah</i> which is <i>ṭevel</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is no problem whatsoever; the same rules apply in both cases. The Cohen’s share in a profanely slaughtered animal is profane; therefore, all rules of civil claims apply. <i>Ḥallah</i> is separated because of religious scruples; no money can be collected since the proselyte cannot prove that he is not obligated.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two <i>qabim,</i> split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Gentiles made a dough which, if made by a Jew, would have been subject to <i>ḥallah</i>. They split the dough in two and converted to Judaism. Then each of them took his part, made from less than 5 quarters of dough, and added to reach the threshhold of <i>ḥallah</i>. This then are new doughs and obligated.<br>The entire paragraph is based on the anonymous opinion that forming the dough for baking causes the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i>. For Rebbi Aqiba, the questions are irrelevant.</i> because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two <i>qabim,</i> split<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One has to explain with R. Joseph Caro that they made the dough with the explicit understanding that they would split before the final shaping. Then the obligated dough would become exempt at the time of splitting. If they make the dough in common and only later decide to split, it is not different from smaller breads taken together in a basket where the basket combines them, cf. Mishnah 2:4. R. Abraham ben David (Note to Maimonides, <i>Bikkurim</i> 7:9) declares the sentence to be meaningless.</i>, 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 <i>qabim,</i> split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is more or less the case treated in the Mishnah.</i>. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">R. Abraham ben David reads: Would the Jew’s part not be obligated only because of the Gentile? This reading is accepted by R. Joseph Caro who explains that without the Gentile’s flour the Jew’s dough certainly would be exempt. But if the Gentile becomes Jewish and is now obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>, the question makes sense the way our text is written.</i>? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Maimonides (<i>Bikkurim</i> 7:10) takes this as a declarative sentence. R. Joseph Caro points out that Maimonides goes out of his way to spell out that the Jew and the Gentile make the entire dough in partnership, implying that at the start they did not intend to split. Therefore, had the Gentile already been Jewish the dough would have been obligated when kneaded.<br>R. Abraham ben David declares that the sentence makes sense only if read as a rhetorical question: “The Jew’s part is obligated, can the Gentile’s be exempt?”, which implies that both doughs are obligated.</i>.",
                "“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it <i>ṭevel.</i> Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In R. Eleazar’s opinion, R. Aqiba accepts <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.3.1\">Mishnah 3:3</a> without change. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that “layman” is mentioned only as contrast to “Temple”. This seems to contradict the statements in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.2\">Halakhah 2:1, Notes 5–6</a>.</i>. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shaping the heap is the end of grain processing, which triggers the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Aqiba states in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Menachot 10:4\" href=\"/Mishnah_Menachot.10.4\">Mishnah <i>Menaḥot</i> 10:4</a> that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the <i>‘omer</i> offering is obligated for tithes. Since the cut grain has to be cleaned before milling, that cleaning process is the equivalent of shaping the heap in a regular harvest. The anonymous majority holds everywhere that all Temple grain is exempt from heave and tithes.<br>Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This argument is brought without a dissenting voice in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 67a\" href=\"/Menachot.67a\">Babli <i>Menaḥot</i> 67a</a>.</i>. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 67a\" href=\"/Menachot.67a\">Babli, <i>Menaḥot</i> 67a</a>, holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic.</i>? There is a difference since it is written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:30\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.30\"><i>Lev.</i>27:30</a>): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The ethnicity of the farmer is not mentioned. The questioner, and the rabbis quoted in the last sentence, must hold with R. Meïr that possession by a Gentile does not remove the obligations imposed on produce of the Land; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 4:6:9\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.6.9\"><i>Peah</i> 4, Notes 129–131</a>.</i>” But is here<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the laws of <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> not written (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:19\" href=\"/Numbers.15.19\"><i>Num.</i> 15:19</a>): “From the bread of the Land?” <i>From</i> the bread, not all bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If this מ is partitive, there is no reason why in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:30\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.30\"><i>Lev.</i> 27:30</a> it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected.</i>. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is implied that in the matter of grain grown by a Gentile in the Land, R. Meïr reports the position of R. Aqiba.<br>A Genizah text reads רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Temple’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple”. This may be the better text.</i>."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to <i>ḥallah</i> and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it.<br>If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no <i>ḥallah</i> was taken and adds it to dough from which <i>ḥallah</i> was taken<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is now <i>ṭevel</i> for <i>ḥallah</i> but most of it is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>, if he can provide for it from another place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From a third dough which is obligated for <i>ḥallah.</i> Since <i>ḥallah</i> as a heave must be given from what is earmarked, the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:2\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.2\">Tosephta (2:2</a>) requires that one make a <i>new</i> dough and put it in the same place as the problematic <i>ṭevel</i> dough to earmark it and take there the full <i>ḥallah</i> for the new dough and a proportionate amount for the offending sourdough. Maimonides in his Commentary follows the Tosephta but in his Code (<i>Bikkurim</i> 7:11) he requires simply that the second dough be subject to <i>ḥallah</i>. The latter is the reasonable interpretation of the Mishnah.</i> he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take <i>ḥallah</i> for everything<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He must take <i>ḥallah</i> from the <i>ṭevel</i> dough in the required amount, 1/24 of the entire dough. Even though in general it is forbidden to give heave from what already is freed from the obligation, it is stated in the next Mishnah that the dough in question is only rabbinically <i>ṭevel</i>; for biblical standards the sourdough has disappeared in the dough whose obligation was already satisfied. Therefore, the <i>ṭevel</i> extended to the entire dough is rabbinic in character and the rabbinic obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> overrides the, in this case rabbinic, requirement to give from obligated dough.</i>. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Olives are harvested by shaking the trees and are subject to heave and tithes; plucked olives are collected by the poor after the harvest and are exempt. Similarly, harvested grapes are obligated and gleanings exempt.</i>, 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Including the poor people’s part since not giving heaves is a deadly sin and it is not clear whether what he takes is actully obligated or free.</i> but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the exempt olives or grapes were mixed with the farmer’s, it is assumed that the farmer bought them from the poor. If not, he has to buy them now so he may take out the tithe. Technically, the farmer has to take full tithe in order to give heave of the tithe but then he may retain the part attributable to the exempt fruits for himself.</i>.<br>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 <i>ḥallah,</i> otherwise it is exempt from <i>ḥallah.</i> Then why did they say<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is a rabbinic prohibition; by biblical standards <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a majority of permitted food. If the prohibition were biblical, <i>ṭevel</i> sour dough in rice cake would have to be treated according to the previous Mishnah.</i> <i>ṭevel</i> is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.1\">Tosephta 2:1</a>. Since, in general, “imparting taste” needs only minute quantities (as discussed in <i>Terumot</i> 10), it is stated here that in the Mishnah a substantial amount is needed and “having the taste” does not mean “it tastes like rice cake but an admixture of wheat is noticeable” but “it actually tastes like wheat bread.” Since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is the only author reported to have quantified this statement, we have to follow him.</i> “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A <i>baraita</i> disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Other than rice and millet which substitute for grain.</i>. A Mishnah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:5:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.5.1\">Mishnah 3:8</a>.</i> disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sourdough is used in small quantities.</i> it is subject to <i>ḥallah,</i> otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The problem addressed is that of active sourdough taken from dough subject to <i>ḥallah</i> but of which <i>ḥallah</i> was not yet taken. That sourdough is <i>ṭevel</i> for <i>ḥallah</i> and subject to more restrictive rules. In this case, “can be tasted” means the minute amounts discussed in <i>Terumot</i> 10, Halakhot 7–10; the quote is irrelevant for the discussion here.</i>: “<i>Ṭevel</i> is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”",
                "Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.",
                "Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Rome ms. “R. Yose ben Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya”; this is unlikely to be correct.</i> asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the face of it, it would seem that the question does not even start since if the two kinds of flour are mixed it seems impossible to take out a fistful of the offering and burn it on the altar since it is forbidden to burn profane material on the altar. On the other hand, the remainder may be eaten only after the fistful was brought to the altar (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 6:9\" href=\"/Leviticus.6.9\"><i>Lev</i>. 6:9</a>). Even the explanation by R. H. Kanievski, that at some place the original offering is still recognizable, does not work since the fistful may be taken only out of the Temple vessel in which the offering was dedicated. One must conclude that the question of practical use is considered a technicality which can be left to the Sages at the time of the Messiah.<br>Since flour offerings before the lifting of the fistful are forbidden to everybody, Cohen and layman, it is reasonable to compare the laws of these offerings to those of <i>ṭevel</i>,</i>? Do I read for this (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 2:3\" href=\"/Leviticus.2.3\"><i>Lev</i>. 2:3</a>): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If <i>ṭevel</i> was mixed with profane, do I read (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:28\" href=\"/Numbers.18.28\"><i>Num</i>. 18:28</a>) “you shall give <i>from it</i> the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah 7 states clearly that in absence of other produce, the <i>ṭevel</i> mixed with profane flour can be put in order by taking the heave <i>from itself.</i></i>? 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Nobody accepts that <i>ṭevel</i> mixed with profane can be used to put certain <i>ṭevel</i> in order!</i> 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 <i>ḥallah</i> for everything”.",
                "They said, Rebbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rebbi 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 <i>ṭevel</i> is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As explained in the Mishnah, if the amount of <i>ṭevel</i> in the profane is small, it has disappeared by biblical standards and it is not legally <i>ṭevel.</i> In this case, <i>ṭevel</i> and profane, even if consisting of similar material, are considered two distinct kinds and the rules of annulment apply. The requirement to give heave from the entire heap is purely rabbinical; any reference to a biblical source is inappropriate.</i>. When he takes from it for another place since this <i>ṭevel</i> is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In that case, the <i>ṭevel</i> is genuine; part of it is destined to become heave. If a minute amount of it fell into heave, it would fall into its own kind and could not disappear.<br>In the Genizah fragment, the cases have been telescoped into one: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵעָשׂוֹת חוּלִין כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטַל.. The scribe left out from להעשות to להעשות.</i>. Rebbi Yose said, that means that if <i>ṭevel</i> was mixed with heave, since this <i>ṭevel</i> is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the inverse case, in which a minute amount of heave fell into <i>ṭevel.</i> Since part of <i>ṭevel</i> is going to be heave, this also is falling into its own kind and no part of it can be disregarded.</i>.",
                "But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The case introduced by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya must be that profane flour fell onto a flour offering that was in a Temple vessel. Flour dedicated for an offering but not yet placed in a Temple vessel is not yet a flour offering. Since flour is not fluid, we have to assume that the offering is at the bottom and the flour on top with an unrecognizable boundary in between. If the upper flour is assimilated to the lower then there is no offering since the upper flour was not dedicated. If the lower part remains an offering then the upper becomes suspended unusable since it was sanctified by the Temple vessel but is not an offering because it is not dedicated. Therefore, the entire flour is invalid for any use.</i>. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This refers to the first case in the Mishnah, <i>ṭevel</i> sour dough in a dough which already is fully profane. A similar statement is in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:2\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.2\">Tosephta 2:2</a>: “If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which <i>ḥallah</i> was not taken, he brings flour from another place and adds to obtain four quarters to make it obligated in proportion.” In the formulation of the Halakhah, the <i>ṭevel</i> dough is made from exactly one quarter. Therefore, if one makes a new dough of exactly one <i>qab</i> which is made to “bite” the profane dough, one has a total of 5 quarters of obligation and may take only <i>ḥallah</i> of the obligated, not from the already exempt. This means in general that if the amount of sour dough is <i>x</i>, the amount needed to avoid giving <i>ḥallah</i> for everything is (5 quarters - <i>x</i>). In this way, neither does one take <i>ḥallah</i> from another place nor does one have to take <i>ḥallah</i> for everything.</i>: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became <i>ṭevel</i> at its place makes four other quarters <i>ṭevel</i>.",
                "This means that biting is biblical<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>baraita</i> (or Tosephta) quoted in the previous paragraph, that a dough prepared from 4 quarters if it bites a dough with 1 quarter of <i>ṭevel</i> produces dough obligated for <i>ḥallah.</i></i>. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He has to declare all of Mishnaiot 7–8 as purely rabbinical.</i>. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">R. Joḥanan says not biblical, R. Simeon ben Laqish says biblical.</i>. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Ṭevul Yom</i> 1:1. The loaves cannot be baked yet; the Tanna must hold that <i>ṭevel</i> does not have the status of profane food. The <i>Ṭevul Yom</i>(<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:11\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.1.11\">Chapter 2, Note 37</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.2.2\"><i>Terumot</i> 5, Note 68</a>) is almost pure; his touch disables heave but has no influence on profane food. According to the House of Hillel, the touch of a <i>Ṭevul Yom</i> disables the <i>ḥallah</i>-heave in one loaf only.</i>: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [<i>ḥallah</i>] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a <i>ṭevul yom</i> but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi 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]”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This refers to <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 22:7\" href=\"/Leviticus.22.7\"><i>Lev</i>. 22:7</a>. The <i>Ṭevul Yom</i> may eat of the loaves even before sundown (after <i>ḥallah</i> was taken). This is obvious for those who hold that <i>ṭevel</i> is like profane in matters of contamination with impurity.<br>The commentators who did not have the Genizah text before them either omitted the words אוכל טהור with R. S. Cirillo’s ms. or switched טמא אוכל טהור into טהור אוכל טמא. In any case, the implication is that while the House of Hillel accept biting as a conduit for impurities other than that of the <i>Ṭevul Yom,</i> these derivative impurities can never be biblical.</i>. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a <i>ṭevul yom</i> because for him is written both pure and impure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 22:6-7\" href=\"/Leviticus.22.6-7\"><i>Lev</i>. 22:6–7</a>.</i>; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the <i>ṭevul yom</i> is biblical<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the exceptional status of the <i>Ṭevul Yom</i> is based on biblical verses, for all other forms of impurity the rules of the <i>Ṭevul Yom</i> do not apply; biting for them is a conduit of impurity.</i>. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi 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?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the sour dough only became <i>ṭevel</i> because of another dough biting the one it was taken from, the <i>ṭevel</i> is only rabbinical and nothing can be inferred about the biblical status of biting (R. Eliahu Fulda).</i>.",
                "Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi 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, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a plurality<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 4:1:5\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.1.5\"><i>Terumot</i> 4:1. Note 10</a>, <i>Ma‘serot</i> 5:2, Note 25 ff.</i>. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, <i>ṭevel</i> does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that <i>ṭevel</i> does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This must refer to a <i>baraita</i> in the style of the Mishnah, probably dealing with several doughs in one vessel where for all of them there is a doubt and <i>ḥallah</i> cannot be taken from another place. This can only happen if the <i>ṭevel</i> is a small part of the entire dough; in all cases of the Mishnah there is a plurality of profane matter.</i>: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If heave was taken from a mixture of <i>ṭevel</i> and profane food, with more profane than <i>ṭevel,</i> and that heave was then mixed again (as minority component) with profane food, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish there is no doubt that the second mixture never can be biblical <i>dema</i>‘ even in a time when all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical. Since, in principle, rabbinic ordinances are valid only as “fences around the Law”, there can be no reason to take heave a second time. For R. Joḥanan, if all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical the second mixture is <i>dema‘</i> and the heave has to be lifted.</i>. For him who says <i>ṭevel</i> does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.",
                "Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about <i>ṭevel</i> by biblical standards. But for <i>ṭevel</i> which is <i>ṭevel</i> only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not <i>ṭevel</i> only by rabbinic standards<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Biblical heave is due only for grain, wine, and olive oil.</i>? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!",
                "Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his <i>ḥallah</i> from a dough from which <i>ḥallah</i> was not taken<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To watch this piece in purity while he may make more dough, possibly in impurity. It is assumed that the grain is <i>demay</i> since from <i>demay</i> flour <i>ḥallah</i> may be taken from the pure for the impure.</i> to have it available in purity to separate from it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah 4:6.</i>.” After most of it became <i>ḥallah</i>, should not the remainder<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which still is <i>ṭevel</i> and according to R. Simeon ben Laqish should disappear in whatever the plurality is.</i> disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He makes a physical sign to mark the part which is now <i>ḥallah</i>. Then the remainder cannot disappear in the <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Demay</i> 5:2. He is required to declare exactly the amount taken and indicate its place in the heap from which it is going to be taken.</i>.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is discussed in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 3:3:5\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.3.3.5\"><i>Terumot</i> 3:5, Note 60</a>. The rabbis require that the places of heaves and tithes should be indicated in detail.</i>. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since R. Joḥanan implies that the designation is automatic, there is no objection to R. Simeon ben Laqish’s explanation.</i>.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tosephta Terumot 5:1. He puts one pumpkin aside to watch in purity for heave of the harvest of an entire field.</i>“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 Rebbi. 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, <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, <i>ṭevel</i> does not disappear in a plurality<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This would prove that there is disagreement also for heave which is purely rabbinical.</i>. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rebbi, he has not only to make a physical sign on the pumpkin but he has to cut off the heave part and deliver it to a Cohen on the day of harvest. According to Rabban Simeon, he may wait until the entire pumpkin is heave.</i>.",
                "“<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Continuation of <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Terumot (Lieberman) 5:1\" href=\"/Tosefta_Terumot_(Lieberman).5.1\">Tosephta <i>Terumot</i> 5:1</a>. The language is difficult. One would assume that amphoras full of wine are in a מרתף, a wine cellar, not in a בור, which is either a cistern or the vat into which the pressed grape juice flows and where it is turned into wine. In addition, one has to separate the prospective heave from the amphora before turning it into heave, otherwise it would diffuse in the entire amphora and turn everything into <i>dema‘</i>. Since the statement is the continuation of the one about pumpkins, one has to say that an amount of <i>ṭevel</i> wine sufficient for the entire cistern was first taken out, put in a separate vessel, but not declared to be heave. Then the wine in the cistern is taken out by filling it into amphoras one by one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, who in the first part did not require that the place of heave be indicated, permits here successive declarations that a certain part of the separated wine should be heave. Rebbi, who in the first part did require that the place of heave be indicated, permits only giving heave for all together since in a fluid no parts can be indicated.</i> 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. Rebbi 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, <i>ṭevel</i> disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, <i>ṭevel</i> does not disappear in a plurality<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All commentators, from R. Eliahu Fulda to R. S. Lieberman, note that one has to switch the places of “disappear” and “not disappear”, against the evidence of both mss. As has been noted before, the two mss. have a common source which already must have contained the error. The problem is for Rabban Simeon who permits giving heave piecemeal, when it is unavoidable that at some point most of the contents of the vessel will be heave.</i>. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One puts the vessel containing the potential heave in the middle of all amphoras to be put in order.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That seems to be an impossible statement since heave has to be given from what is earmarked (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:6:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.6.1\">Mishnah 1:9</a>). The meaning is that giving piecemeal, even if the amphora to be put in order touches the vessel containing the potential heave, might not be considered earmarked since the wine which becomes heave is undefined.</i>. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi 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. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One might put a thread around all amphoras. But this seems to be unnecessary, cf. Note 137 and the end of Halakhah 4.</i>?"
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> If two women each made a <i>qab</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They separately made bread dough and now are baking it together in the same oven. Separately, the doughs are exempt but both together are obligated since 2 &gt; 5/4.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the doughs touch or are on the same baking sheet.</i>, different kinds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is defined in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 4:2</a>.</i> are exempt.<br>What is the same kind? Wheat combines<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:14\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.14\">Chapter 1, Notes 40</a> ff.</i> with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Maimonides (<i>Bikkurim</i> 7:1), followed by the later law codes, there is no difference between men and women in this matter. According to R. M. Margalit, the Mishnah specifies women because women are neat and insist that their bread be separate from that of others while men usually do not care. The later statement of R. Lazar seems to support R. M. Margalit but the uncertain gender in the text of the Halakhah might support Maimonides.</i>. They gave to one woman who minds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If for some reason she insists on keeping the two loaves strictly separated.</i> 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? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This may be read as “he”.</i> makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One loaf of white flour, the other one of whole wheat. This is counted as two different kinds.</i>, she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to R. M. Margalit, this now speaks of two men. As R. Meïr notes (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:7:2-5\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.7.2-5\"><i>Sotah</i> 1:7</a>, fol. 17a; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Gittin 90a\" href=\"/Gittin.90a\">Babli <i>Giṭṭin</i> 90a</a>) men have different standards of cleanliness. Some men will not drink any more from a cup of wine in which they found a fly, others will take the fly out and drink the remainder. A man adhering to a higher standard of cleanliness will insist to keep his bread as separate as women do.</i>. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What is the status of the bread if the women kneaded their doughs separately but at baking time they decide to have them together? The answer depends on one’s position regarding R. Aqiba’s opinion in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:4:5-7\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.4.5-7\">Halakhah 3:5</a>.</i>?",
                "Certain situations are connections for <i>ḥallah</i> but not for a <i>ṭevul yom</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The touch of a <i>ṭevul yom</i> makes heave (including <i>ḥallah</i>) unusable and sacrifices impure (<i>Demay</i> 6:6, Notes 138,140). But since the <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> has been purified, only his immediate touch is damaging, not the touch by an intermediary object. Therefore, if the <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> touches a loaf of <i>ḥallah</i>, he makes the <i>ḥallah</i> inedible, including everything connected with it. It is now stated that the rules of connection regarding the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> are not identical with the rules governing an eventual disqualification of the <i>ḥallah</i> taken.</i>, [others] for a <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> but not for <i>ḥallah</i>. A connection for <i>ḥallah</i> 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 <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> as we have stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Ṭevul</i> <i>Yom</i> 1:1, dealing with a Cohen who collects <i>ḥallah</i> from several households to carry home in one basket but does not intend to eat the different morsels together.</i>: “If somebody collects pieces of <i>ḥallah</i> in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i>, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a <i>ṭevul yom</i>.” We also stated there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> touches one piece of <i>ḥallah</i>, that piece is unusable but all the others are unimpaired.</i>: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Ṭevul</i> <i>Yom</i> 2:5: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed; if a <i>ṭevul yom</i> touched the sediment, the pieces are permitted. If he touched a piece, it and all that clings to it are connected. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says both are connected to one another.” “Sediment” are the remainders of spices, single fibers from the meat, and assorted matrer which usually clings to the sides of the cooking pot. Since any such sediment will be scraped or washed off before the meat is eaten, it is considered separate.</i> congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Separate pieces of sediment on one piece of meat are considered as one; in the case of <i>ḥallah</i> they would not be considered one as indicated by the next statement by R. Joḥanan.</i> even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for <i>ḥallah</i>; as Rebbi Joḥanan said<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:5:2-4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.5.2-4\">Chapter 1:8</a>, first paragraph.</i>, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i>.",
                "Was is left<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What is left in the statement of the anonymous Tanna that R. Joḥanan ben Nuri could disagree with? It was stated in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:13\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.13\">Halakhah 1:1 (Note 39</a>) that oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail a kind of barley. Since the Mishnah here, in contrast to <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.1.1.1\">Mishnah <i>Kilaim</i> 1:1</a>, combines spelt and wheat, there are only two kinds as far as the rules of <i>ḥallah</i> are concerned and the statement of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri seems to be meaningless.</i>? 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! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this formulation, the difference bentween the anonymous Tanna and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri is clear but then one has to ask what is the difference between <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.1.1\">Mishnaiot 1:1</a> and 4:2.</i>” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since by <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 1</a> the doughs of two different owners never were obligated, if one of them increases his dough to 5/4 <i>qab</i> the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> is new and valid. The exemption of the mixed dough is explained in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:4:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.4.6\">Chapter 3, Note 72</a>.</i>, exempt when mixed."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> Two <i>qabim</i> and a <i>qab</i> of rice or<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading of the Rome ms. and the Constantinople print: או תרומה; this probably is a gloss.</i> heave between them do not combine<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Two loaves made of bread flour each of which is too small to be subject to <i>ḥallah</i> are both touching an exempt dough (which is either from material intrinsically exempt or from flour exempt because of its status of sanctity) cannot become obligated since the exempt dough acts as a barrier as if it were of iron. But a dough which is not exempt cannot separate, even if it now is no longer subject to <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. If a thing of which <i>ḥallah</i> was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to <i>ḥallah</i>.<br>If a <i>qab</i> of new grain and one of old bit one another<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While two doughts together are obligated for <i>ḥallah</i> as noted in the previous Halakhah, it is forbidden to give heave from one year’s harvest for another year’s (Mishnah <i>Terumot</i> 1:5). Everybody agrees that <i>ḥallah</i> must be given from both kinds of grain; the question is only how this has to be done.</i>, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes <i>ḥallah</i> from a single <i>qab,</i> Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be <i>ḥallah</i> but the Sages say, it is not <i>ḥallah.</i><br>If <i>ḥallah</i> of two <i>qabim</i> was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of R. Aqiba who treats <i>ḥallah</i> from less than the minimal volume as genuine <i>ḥallah.</i></i> becomes a leniency.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rice dough is never subject to <i>ḥallah.</i></i>, but heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of bread dough.</i>, 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 dragged in<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Dema‘</i> dough containing heave flour is exempt from <i>ḥallah</i> (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.2.1\">Mishnah 3:2</a>).</i>, but rice, which is dragged in<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Dough containing rice is subject to <i>ḥallah</i> if it tastes like bread (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:5:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.3.5.1\">Mishnah 3:6</a>).</i>, should combine. It is necessary to state “rice” and “heave”.",
                "“<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In different formulation, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:3-4\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.3-4\">Tosephta 2:3–4</a>.</i> A <i>qab</i> of rice does not combine; a <i>qab</i> of <i>dema‘</i> does not combine, a <i>qab</i> of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s <i>qab</i> does not combine. A <i>qab</i> of another kind<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Tosephta, for wheat dough this is restricted to spelt which can combine both with wheat and with barley. The Tosephta follows R. Joḥanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah; the Yerushalmi <i>baraita</i> in the Leyden version follows the Tanna of the reformulated statement (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.4\">Note 19</a>); the Rome ms. reads אינו מצרף “it does not combine”; possibly following the anonymous Tanna in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 2</a>.</i> combines. A <i>qab</i> of another woman combines. A <i>qab</i> of new grain combines<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two doughs at the two sides are made from last year’s grain harvest, the one in the middle is from this year’s grain; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.2.1\">Mishnah 4</a>.</i>. A <i>qab</i> of something of which <i>ḥallah</i> was taken in the middle does combine<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is a case of the Mishnah.</i>.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a <i>qab</i> of <i>ḥallah</i> combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated <i>qab</i> does combine, a <i>qab</i> of <i>ḥallah</i> does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and <i>ḥallah</i>? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, <i>ḥallah</i> cannot be redeemed and made obligated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One could have argued that <i>ḥallah</i> is a heave; then R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question is answered in the Mishnah.</i>.",
                "“Half a <i>qab</i> of wheat, half a <i>qab</i> of barley, half a <i>qab</i> of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:5\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.5\">Tosephta 2:5</a>. There, the reading is: “He takes from the spelt.” The meaning is the same as in the <i>baraita</i> here, that the entire heave is taken from spelt since that combines with both wheat and barley.</i>. A <i>qab</i> of wheat, a <i>qab</i> of barley, a <i>qab</i> of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A similar text in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:4\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.4\">Tosephta 2:4</a>: “A <i>qab</i> of wheat, a <i>qab</i> of barley, a <i>qab</i> of spelt do combine. If he takes heave, he takes from each one separately since one does not give heave from one species for another.” In this version, the rules for <i>ḥallah</i> and heave are different; the discussion shows that this is not the position of the Yerushalmi. It follows that the <i>baraita</i> represents a tradition different from the Tosephta. It is not necessary to assume with Maimonides that the <i>qab</i> here is a larger measure, equal to 5/4 standard <i>qab</i> which causes separate obligations of <i>ḥallah.</i> As R. Eliahu Fulda explains, the barley in the middle is also subject to <i>ḥallah;</i> it is not different from dough of which <i>ḥallah</i> already was taken. Therefore, the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> exists and has to be satisfied following the rules of heave.</i>” He said only, a <i>qab</i> of wheat, a <i>qab</i> of barley, a <i>qab</i> of spelt, therefore this is not about a <i>qab</i> of wheat, a <i>qab</i> of barley, and a <i>qab</i> of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi 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.",
                "Rebbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:32\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.32\"><i>Lev.</i> 27:32</a>; from the verse it is clear that the minimum number of newborn animals subject to tithe is 10. The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7\" href=\"/Mishnah_Bekhorot.9.7\">Mishnah (<i>Bekhorot</i> 9:7</a>) states that animals are close to one another to be counted together for tithes if they are within grazing distance of one another; this is fixed at 16 <i>mil.</i> It is stated that the distance from Kefar Ḥananiah to Sepphoris is 16 <i>mil,</i> from Sepphoris to Kefar Othnai also 16 <i>mil.</i> <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Bekhorot 7:2\" href=\"/Tosefta_Bekhorot.7.2\">Tosephta (<i>Bekhorot</i> 7:3</a>) and <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bekhorot 55a\" href=\"/Bekhorot.55a\">Babli (<i>Bekhorot</i> 55a</a>) state that there is an obligation of animal tithe if the total number of newborn animals of a single owner in Kefar Ḥananiah, Sepphoris, and Kefar Othnai is at least ten with at least one being at Sepphoris. R. Jonah now asks whether it is sufficient that the owner had animals at Sepphoris which were in the past counted for tithe, similar to the situation described in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.2.1\">Mishnah 3</a>.</i>? 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 <i>ḥallah</i> was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that <i>ḥallah</i> is different since there it bites, are these 16 <i>mil</i> not as if it did bite? We find <i>ḥallah</i> from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rule of <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:2:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.2.1\">Mishnah 3</a> is rabbinic; for animal tithe only biblical standards apply. R. Jonah’s question is answered in the negative.</i>.",
                "Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Terumot</i> Mishnah 2:4.</i>. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is forbidden, <i>Terumot</i> Mishnah 1:5. It follows that the prohibition of the rabbis is rabbinic, not biblical. R. Eliahu Fulda points out that the argument is weak since even R. Ismael requires that <i>ḥallah</i> be taken in such a way that dough from both sides is taken; the difference between him and the rabbis is only whether <i>ḥallah</i> can be taken together or must be taken separately.</i>.",
                "Rebbi Aqiba compares it to not fully processed produce; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Terumot</i> 1:10.</i>. But the rabbis compare it to produce not yet one-third ripe; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is not heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.1\">Mishnah <i>Ḥallah</i> 1:3</a>, following R. Eleazar.</i>. They had second thoughts and said, it is similar neither to not fully processed produce nor to produce not yet one-third ripe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since it also must follow the majority opinion in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.1.3.1\">Mishnah <i>Ḥallah</i> 1:3</a>.</i>! But Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Everybody agrees that produce tentatively designated as heave cannot be heave if there is nothing it can be given for. Similarly, they will hold that <i>ḥallah</i> tentatively designated for the case the dough will reach critical size cannot be <i>ḥallah</i> if no obligated dough is available at the time of designation.</i>.",
                "They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, <i>ḥallah</i> may be taken from a <i>qab</i> from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the combined dough of 2 <i>qab</i> is subject to biblical <i>ḥallah</i> in everybody’s opinion, R. Aqiba must declare <i>ḥallah</i> from a single <i>qab</i> as biblical <i>ḥallah.</i><br>In R. Aqiba’s statement, “one <i>qab</i>” must be taken litterally; it is not an expression meaning “less than 5/4 <i>qab</i>” since in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Eduyot 1:2\" href=\"/Mishnah_Eduyot.1.2\">Mishnah <i>Idiut</i> 1:2</a>, Shammai is reported to fix the obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> at one <i>qab</i> (and Hillel at 2 <i>qabim</i>). R. Aqiba must hold that any amount which is declared <i>ḥallah</i> in any tradition must be recognized as biblical <i>ḥallah</i> (Maimonides in his Commentary.)</i>.",
                "“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> A person may take for <i>ḥallah</i> from a dough prepared in purity and from which <i>ḥallah</i> has not yet been taken, to use it continuously for <i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not very clear what “<i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i>” is since <i>ḥallah</i> has the status of Great Heave which everybody is supposed to have given. It seems, with R. Simson, that “<i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i>” is <i>ḥallah</i> taken for bread bought from an untrustworthy baker, as described in Mishnah <i>Demay</i> 5:1. According to Maimonides, in his Code and the later version of his Commentary, “<i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i>” refers to any <i>ḥallah</i> whose status as biblical obligation is in doubt.</i> until it decays, since <i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i> may be taken from pure for impure and from what is not earmarked<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since dough or bread bought from an untrustworthy person always has the status of ritual impurity, the pure dough set aside for <i>ḥallah</i> cannot be combined with the impure for which it is designated. Therefore, the procedure described here is restricted to the case where the heave (i. e., <i>ḥallah</i>) does not have to be earmarked.</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> What means “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">No food prohibitions do apply to anything unfit as dog food.</i>? Let us hear from the following<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Another version is in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Terumot (Lieberman) 9:10\" href=\"/Tosefta_Terumot_(Lieberman).9.10\">Tosephta <i>Terumot</i> 9:10</a>: “Rebbi Ḥananiah the Second of the Cohanim says: Heave which is no longer human food but is dog food is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in its place.” Since there is a name attached to this statement, it is implied that the majority will deny that anything which is not human food can become impure in the impurity of food. The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 15b\" href=\"/Pesachim.15b\">Babli (<i>Pesaḥim</i> 15b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 45b\" href=\"/Pesachim.45b\">45b</a>) quotes a similar but anonymous <i>baraita.</i> It follows that the Babli decides with R. Ḥananiah the Second of the Cohanim but the Yerushalmi against him. Maimonides (<i>Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin</i> 2:14) follows the Yerushalmi, against the protests of R. Abraham ben David.</i>: “If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One burns it immediately as impure; one does not treat it as suspended as would be required if the status of impurity were in doubt.</i>.” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food.",
                "This means<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Mishnah which permits using dough close to being spoiled as <i>ḥallah</i> (i. e., heave) for freshly prepared dough.</i> that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:13\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.2.1.13\"><i>Demay</i>2, Note 63</a>.</i> 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 Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery!",
                "It was stated: “Heave of the tithe of <i>demay</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Quote from an otherwise unknown <i>baraita</i>. From the text one may understand that the <i>baraita</i> stated that heave of the tithe of <i>demay</i> follows the same rules as <i>ḥallah</i> for <i>demay</i> dough as spelled out in the Mishnah.</i>.” Come and see, since certain heave of the tithe may be taken from pure for impure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.3.1\">Mishnah <i>Bikkurim</i> 2:5</a>; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 2:1:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.2.1.4\"><i>Terumot</i> 2, Note 9</a>.</i>, heave of the tithe of <i>demay</i> not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, we deal with a doubt of Great Heave when it is not sure whether Great Heave was taken or not<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But in general, the term <i>demay</i> implies that Great Heave was taken and only tithes and heave of the tithe are questionable. This supports the interpretation that also in the Mishnah, <i>demay</i> is used in a loose, non-technical way.</i>. As you say, “from certain produce for <i>demay</i>, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it;”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 5:8:12\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.5.8.12\"><i>Demay</i> 5:10, Note 144</a>.</i> he asserts that from <i>demay</i> for <i>demay</i> it is the same. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Also called R. Simeon ben Barsana.</i> said, there<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>baraita</i> is needed; its contents cannot be derived from the Mishnah here since the heave of the tithe is to be eaten whereas in the Mishnah the dough reserved for <i>ḥallah</i> has to be burned in the end when it becomes inedible.</i> he wants to eat it, here he wants to burn it."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The parts of David’s kingdom not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Peah 7:5:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.7.5.6\"><i>Peah</i> 7, Note 119</a>. R. Eliezer holds that the laws of the Holy Land extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially outside the Land and only selected laws of the Land are extended to apply there.</i>; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two <i>ḥallot</i> in Syria<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As explained in Mishnah 8. Biblical law restricts the duty of <i>ḥallah</i> to the Land (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 15:18-19\" href=\"/Numbers.15.18-19\"><i>Num</i>. 15:18–19</a>). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any <i>ḥallah</i> outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give <i>ḥallah</i> to a Cohen, it was established that some dough should be given to a Cohen. This dough cannot be sanctified, otherwise it would be forbidden to the recipient.</i> but Rebbi Eliezer says one <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He denies that Syrian soil is impure.</i>. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases.<br>Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the biblical Land of Israel.</i>. The Land of Israel<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The actual Land of Israel of the Second Commonwealth; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Sheviit 6:1\" href=\"/Mishnah_Sheviit.6.1\">Mishnah <i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:1, Note 3</a>, for the geographic details.</i> up to Akhzib, one <i>ḥallah</i>. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One has to add, with Mishnah <i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:1, “any place held by the immigrants from Egypt,” i. e., the regions North of Akhzib described as tribal territories in the book of Joshua.</i>, two <i>ḥallot</i>, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The true <i>ḥallah</i> which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for <i>ḥallah</i> of the Land, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah 2:7</a>.</i>, the one for the Cohen has no measure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A purely symbolic <i>ḥallah</i> to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.</i>. From Euphrates or Amanus inside<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rest of Syria, domain of biblical promise; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6:1:22\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.1.22\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:1, Note 3</a>.</i>, two <i>ḥallot</i>, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both <i>ḥallot</i> are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of <i>ḥallah</i> even during the First Commonwealth.</i>, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a <i>ṭevul</i> <i>yom</i> may eat it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He is forbidden true <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This also shows that the symbolic <i>ḥallah</i> is no true heave, cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.1.1.1\"><i>Berakhot</i> 1, Note 3</a>.</i>.<br>But it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The purely symbolic <i>ḥallah</i> mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body.</i> is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 15:1-15\" href=\"/Leviticus.15.1-15\"><i>Lev</i>. 15:1–15</a>, 25–30.</i>, and to women during menstruation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 15:19-24\" href=\"/Leviticus.15.19-24\"><i>Lev</i>. 15:19–24</a>.</i> or after childbirth<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 12:1-8\" href=\"/Leviticus.12.1-8\"><i>Lev</i>. 12:1–8</a>.</i>. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even a vulgar who cannot be expected to follow all rules of purity.</i>.<br>The following may be given to any Cohen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Irrespective of his level of observance and knowledge of the Law. Some of the prescribed gifts are given to priests serving in the Temple; there, they are under supervision and instruction. The other gifts are purely profane; they cannot be impaired by the impurity of the Cohen.</i>: <i>ḥērem</i>-dedications<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:14\" href=\"/Numbers.18.14\"><i>Num.</i> 18:14</a>. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [<i>Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq</i>12(9), <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sanhedrin 88a\" href=\"/Sanhedrin.88a\">Babli <i>Sanhedrin</i> 88a</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Arakhin 28a\" href=\"/Arakhin.28a\"><i>Arakhin</i>28a</a>]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Arakhin 29a\" href=\"/Arakhin.29a\"><i>Arakhin</i>29a</a>).</i>, firstlings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13:1\" href=\"/Exodus.13.1\"><i>Ex.</i> 13:1</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:15\" href=\"/Numbers.18.15\"><i>Num.</i> 18:15</a>.</i>, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13:1\" href=\"/Exodus.13.1\"><i>Ex.</i> 13:1</a>,<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13:13\" href=\"/Exodus.13.13\">13</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 3:47\" href=\"/Numbers.3.47\"><i>Num.</i> 3:47</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:15\" href=\"/Numbers.18.15\">18:15</a>.</i>, the redemption value of a firstling donkey<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13:1\" href=\"/Exodus.13.1\"><i>Ex.</i> 13:1</a>,<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13:13\" href=\"/Exodus.13.13\">13</a>.</i>, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:3\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.3\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:3</a>.</i>, the first shearing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:4\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.4\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:4</a>.</i>, oil to burn<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Impure heave olive oil.</i>, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 26:1-11\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.26.1-11\"><i>Deut.</i> 26:1–11</a>.</i>. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since they have to follow rules of heave, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.1.1\">Mishnah <i>Bikkurim</i> 2:1</a>.</i>. Heave vetch<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is animal fodder except in times of famine.</i> Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These have acquired the hereditary right to remain tenants; this is a kind of lien on the real estate.</i>, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For 200 years in one family.</i>. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To take away an incentive to leave the Land for more profitable farming in Syria.</i>. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially a foreign country, he holds that there <i>ḥallah</i> even in Temple times is only rabbinic in character and the vulgar will not give <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> has to separate <i>ḥallah</i> as <i>demay</i>, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate <i>ḥallah</i> as <i>demay</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:5\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.5\">Tosephta 2:5</a>. This is part of a longer statement by R. Eleazar ben R. Ẓadoq who explains the position of Rabban Gamliel that the sharecropper is exempt because the grain is processed in the possession of the Gentile but <i>ḥallah</i> whose obligation starts in the house of the Jew follows exactly the laws of the Land.</i>” Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel said it right, what is the reason of the Sages? 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 <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whose rules are those of the Great Heave.</i> in Syria.",
                "Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you said that there are two <i>ḥallot</i> in Syria, should there not be two heaves<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first to be burned and the second to be eaten.</i> in Syria? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, there comes nothing after <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Taking <i>ḥallah</i> makes dough and bread totally profane.</i> but after heave there comes something. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The second one which cannot be real heave or it would have to be burned.</i> were <i>ṭevel</i> for tithes!",
                "Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute <i>demay</i> in Syria<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Against Mishnah <i>Demay</i> 1:3 which restricts <i>demay</i> to the Land of Israel. One may assume that in his time the center of Jewish population had moved from Galilee to Syria.</i> but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since <i>ḥallah</i> is legitimate only if the dough was made from tithed flour.</i>! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 1:3:21\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.1.3.21\"><i>Demay</i> 1, Note 172</a>, explaining the statement of the Mishnah that <i>ḥallah</i> of a vulgar is exempt from the laws of <i>demay</i>.</i>, 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? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since it is burned, the vulgar will not worry if heave of the tithe was not given.</i>. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their <i>ḥallah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The language of the statement excludes the argument of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya.</i>! “<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 1:8\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).1.8\">Tosephta 1:8</a>. Cf. <i>Tosefta</i> <i>ki-Fshutah</i>, p.799.</i> He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate <i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I. e., give heave of the tithe and afterwards <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>; from a private person and if he is a guest<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Tosephta, “from a private person and his guests.” Even if he is the baker’s guest but eats from the bread the baker makes for himself and his family (R. Abraham ben David). The reading of the Rome ms., וּמתארח אצלו “from a private person and he is his guest” supports Maimonides (<i>Bikkurim</i> 8:15). <i>Hilkhot</i> <i>Tašbeẓ</i> explains: “If one buys from a private person one has to give extra <i>ḥallah</i> except if one is his guest or saw him knead for another person.”</i> he does not have to separate <i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i>.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That other people trust him to give their <i>ḥallah</i>.</i>. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate <i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i>; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate <i>ḥallah</i> of <i>demay</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since in this case, a field in Syria is subject to tithes; Mishnah <i>Demay</i> 6:11.</i>. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since he denies <i>demay</i> in Syria.</i>? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Demay</i> 1:3 deals only with the Land where all vulgars can be trusted to give <i>ḥallah</i> as they give Great Heave.</i>, there outside the Land.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This and the following paragraph are from <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.1\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:1, Notes 90–95</a>.</i> Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is defined in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:1:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.1.1\">Mishnah 4:2</a>.</i>, 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. Rebbi Jehudah said, all that lies before the Land of Israel is like the Land of Israel since it is said (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 34:6\" href=\"/Numbers.34.6\"><i>Num</i>. 34:6</a>): “The Western border shall be for you the Great Sea as border; that shall be for you the sea border.” 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.",
                "Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, when the people of the Diaspora arrive at Taurus Amanus they will sing. What is the reason? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Song of Songs 4:8\" href=\"/Song_of_Songs.4.8\"><i>Cant</i>. 4:8</a>) “Sing from the top of Amanah”.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A similar discussion in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bekhorot 55a\" href=\"/Bekhorot.55a\">Babli <i>Bekhorot</i> 55a</a>. There, the first opinion is declared to be that of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, the second that of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra, and the third that of R. Meїr.</i> 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: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 3:17\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.3.17\"><i>Deut</i>. 3:17</a>) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Joshua 18:20\" href=\"/Joshua.18.20\"><i>Jos</i>. 18:20</a>): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Ketubot (Lieberman) 8:4\" href=\"/Tosefta_Ketubot_(Lieberman).8.4\">Tosephta <i>Ketubot</i> 8:4</a>, <i>Baba Qama</i> 10:23, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bava Metzia 22a\" href=\"/Bava_Metzia.22a\">Babli <i>Baba Meẓi‘a</i> 22a</a>. The argument there is that a change in the river bed is an act of God against which the property owners are powerless; one may therefore assume that the owners have given up hope to recover their land; the part taken by the river now is ownerless.</i>“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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is a very unlikely scenario. The Jordan is meandering only between the Land of Israel and Transjordan.</i>, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is assumed that people do not keep documents for more than three years. Therefore, a person who claims to have legal possession of real estate by sale or inheritance, in the absence of a title can prove his claim by showing undisturbed possession for three years. Such a claim cannot be brought simultaneously for property inside and outside the Land.</i>, removals<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The required consumption of Sabbatical produce which varies from region to region, <i>Ševi‘it</i> 9:2.</i>, and animal tithe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the topic of <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bekhorot 55a\" href=\"/Bekhorot.55a\">Babli <i>Bekhorot</i> 55a</a>.</i>. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.",
                "“The one for the fire has a measure,” for it is biblical<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The true <i>ḥallah</i> which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for <i>ḥallah</i> of the Land, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.2.3.1\">Mishnah 2:7</a>.</i>. “The one for the Cohen has no measure,” for it is rabbinical<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A purely symbolic <i>ḥallah</i> to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.</i>. Should he give for the fire and not for the Cohen? That they should not say, we saw pure heave being burned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The territory of the Land of Israel during the First Commonwealth which was not reoccupied by Jews during the Second Commonwealth is pure by biblical standards, impure only rabbinically. One might have a point considering that heave as pure. The second <i>ḥallah</i> shows that the obligation is only rabbinical and it is impure only by rabbinical standards.</i>. Should he give for the Cohen and not for the fire? That they should not say, we saw impure heave being eaten<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since it is impure by actual standards.</i>. Since he gives both of them, when he comes here<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two <i>ḥallot</i> are required mainly to make sure that immigrants to the Holy Land inquire about the rules to be followed in the Land.</i>, he will ask.",
                "But both are rabbinical<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">this now refers to the <i>ḥallah</i> of Syria outside the Promised Land. Since both <i>ḥallot</i> are rabbinical, why is one subject to a minimum amount but not the other.</i>! It is better to increase the one to be eaten, not the one to be burned.",
                "Even Rebbi Yose<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Mishnah 8, he states that purely rabbinic <i>ḥallah</i> does not need purification of the Cohen by immersion. He agrees with the anonymous Mishnah 9 that persons whose impurity is caused by their bodies are excluded from eating even rabbinic <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone’s body.",
                "Rebbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra that it needs a plurality<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>ḥallah</i> from territories never possessed by the tribes of Israel or the returnees from Babylonia, if mixed with profane food, does not create <i>dema‘</i> if the profane is more than the <i>ḥallah.</i> This is accepted by the Babli for all heave of the Diaspora (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bekhorot 21a\" href=\"/Bekhorot.21a\"><i>Bekhorot</i> 21a</a>).<br>Bostra is a town in Syria just outside the domain settled by the returnees from Babylonia; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.2.1.2\"><i>Demay</i>2, Note 8</a>.</i>. Rebbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbinic <i>ḥallah</i>, subject of Mishnah 9, does not follow the rules of heave explained in <i>Terumot</i> 9. He is not specific about the amounts needed to annul the rabbinic <i>ḥallah.</i></i>. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: “It may be eaten at one table with a layman<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He disagrees with both R. Abbahu and R. Jonah and holds that foreign <i>ḥallah</i> never creates <i>dema‘</i> since mixing the <i>ḥallah</i> with profane food cannot usually be avoided if both are on the same table.<br>The name tradition is confirmed by all written sources but it seems to be impossible. Either “R. Jonah” is incorrect since R. Jonah was a student of R. Zeïra’s student R. Jeremiah and R. Zeïra cannot conduct a polemic against his opinion, or instead of “R. Zeïra” one has to read “R. Yose”.</i>”.",
                "Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Babylonia.</i> used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who explain difficult passages. Their identity is unknown. In <i>Gen</i>.<i>rabba</i> 51(12) a R. Hoshaia the Interpreter and in 65(6) a Ḥizqiahu the Interpreter are mentioned. The time of the first cannot be determined; the second must be later than R. Berekhiah of the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm. The Babli does not mention any change of practice.</i>. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For <i>ḥallah</i> from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One may eat from what in the Land would be <i>ṭevel</i> and declare the remainder as <i>ḥallah</i> or heave. This is quoted in the name of Samuel, as practice, by the <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Beitzah 9a\" href=\"/Beitzah.9a\">Babli (<i>Beẓah</i> 9a</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bekhorot 27a\" href=\"/Bekhorot.27a\"><i>Bekhorot</i> 27a</a>).</i>. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Babylonia they only gave Great Heave for grain, wine, and olive oil, but no tithes. This is confirmed by the fact that tithes from outside the Land (including Transjordan and Syria) are never mentioned in either Talmud.</i>, 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even in the Land there is no biblical obligation for any produce other than grain, wine, and olive oil. Therefore, outside the Land there is no reason to observe heaves and tithes even as a remembrance of the Land.</i>.",
                "It was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Babylonian version (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:6\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.6\">Tosephta 2:6</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 67a\" href=\"/Menachot.67a\">Babli <i>Menaḥot</i> 67a</a>) reads: Concerning a Gentile’s <i>ḥallah</i> in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that he is not obligated, the <i>ḥallah</i> may be eaten by outsiders and the heave does not create <i>dema‘</i>.<br>The Gentile is a “Friend of the Synagogue”, as they are frequently mentioned as donors in Synagogue inscriptions in the Diaspora. Since R. Meїr holds that possession of real estate by a Gentile in the Land does not free his property from the duties of heave and tithes (even though this is not practice to be followed), a Gentile’s heave in the Land is heave.</i>: “Concerning a Gentile’s <i>ḥallah</i> in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that it is unnecessary, he might eat it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since he dedicated it in error, the dedication is invalid and he may retract it. But if he insists on giving, it must be given to a Cohen. One must assume that in this case also, the heave is forbidden to a Cohen whose body is a source of impurity.</i>, and it may be given to any Cohen, be he Fellow or vulgar.”",
                "Some of them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The items listed in the Mishnah.</i> are given to the people of the watch<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The families of certified Cohanim, admitted to service in the Temple, were divided into 24 sections, each of which was the watch serving in the Temple for one week. Except for the High Priest, no Cohen had the right to officiate in the Temple except during holidays and the week assigned to his watch.</i>; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unblemished firstlings which are a sacrifice of which the owners receive no part. Blemished firstlings, unfit for sacrifice, may be given to any Cohen locally.</i> and First Fruits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Have to be delivered to the Cohen in the Temple.</i> to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that <i>ḥērem</i>-dedications<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:14\" href=\"/Numbers.18.14\"><i>Num.</i> 18:14</a>. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [<i>Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq</i>12(9), <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sanhedrin 88a\" href=\"/Sanhedrin.88a\">Babli <i>Sanhedrin</i> 88a</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Arakhin 28a\" href=\"/Arakhin.28a\"><i>Arakhin</i>28a</a>]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Arakhin 29a\" href=\"/Arakhin.29a\"><i>Arakhin</i>29a</a>).</i> are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:21\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.21\"><i>Lev.</i> 27:21</a>) “Like the <i>ḥērem</i>-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the chapter deals with transactions by the Temple treasurer, it follows that a specially dedicated field has to be given by the treasurer to the Cohen officiating in the Temple, i. e., to the watch of the week. The same argument in <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Sanhedrin 88a\" href=\"/Sanhedrin.88a\">Babli <i>Sanhedrin</i> 88a</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Arakhin 28a\" href=\"/Arakhin.28a\"><i>Arakhin</i> 28a</a>.</i>.” From where 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.” (From where that <i>ḥērem</i>-dedications are for the people of the watch?)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A dittography in both mss.; it must be an old error.</i> But is it not written: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:3\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.3\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:3</a>) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If “Cohen” in the first verse means “Cohen of the current watch” then in the second verse it should have the same meaning. But since <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:3\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.3\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:3</a> clearly speaks about profane slaughter, away from the Temple, the meaning of the word must include any Cohen.<br>The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Arakhin 28b\" href=\"/Arakhin.28b\">Babli (<i>Arakhin</i> 28b</a>) disagrees and compares “Cohen” in this verse, about which it is written (v. 16) “If … a man declares holy for the Eternal” to the Cohen mentioned in the law about the repentant offender in case the person he injured or defrauded has died heirless, where it is written: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 5:6\" href=\"/Numbers.5.6\"><i>Num.</i>5:6</a>) “The money must be returned to the Eternal for the Cohen”. The latter money is distributed among the people of the current watch.</i>? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:28\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.28\"><i>Lev</i>. 27:28</a>) “Every <i>ḥērem</i>-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All most holy sacrifices are either totally burned or eaten by Cohanim only.</i>, so <i>ḥērem-</i> dedications are for the people of the watch!",
                "If this is the case, also movables<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The argument based on <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:28\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.28\"><i>Lev.</i>27:28</a> cannot be true because <i>ḥerem-</i> dedicated movables may be given to any Cohen but are also called “most holy” in the verse.</i>? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Referring to <i>ḥerem</i>-dedications.</i>? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:1\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.1\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:1</a>) “The gifts<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sacrifices.</i> to the Eternal and His inheritance<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term נחלה is used only for real estate; usually only for what was given the family under Joshua.</i> they shall eat.” Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance.",
                "<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">146</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Challah (Lieberman) 2:7-9\" href=\"/Tosefta_Challah_(Lieberman).2.7-9\">Tosephta <i>Ḥallah</i> 2:7–9</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bava Kamma 110b\" href=\"/Bava_Kamma.110b\">Babli <i>Baba Qama</i> 110b</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Chullin 132b\" href=\"/Chullin.132b\"><i>Ḥulin</i> 132b</a>, <i>Sifry Qoraḥ</i> #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), <i>Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar</i> 24, <i>Num. rabba</i> 5(1).</i>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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">147</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 6:19\" href=\"/Leviticus.6.19\"><i>Lev.</i> 6:19</a>.</i>, reparation offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">148</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 7:7\" href=\"/Leviticus.7.7\"><i>Lev.</i> 7:7</a>.</i>, public well-being offerings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">149</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:19\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.19\"><i>Lev.</i> 23:19</a>. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct.</i>, purification offering of a bird<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">150</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten.</i>, the reparation offering for suspected guilt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">151</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 5:17-18\" href=\"/Leviticus.5.17-18\"><i>Lev</i>5:17–18</a>.</i>, the <i>log</i> of oil of the skin-diseased<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">152</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 14:10\" href=\"/Leviticus.14.10\"><i>Lev</i> 14:10</a>,<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 14:21\" href=\"/Leviticus.14.21\">21</a>. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen.</i>, the two breads<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">153</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:17\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.17\"><i>Lev.</i> 23:17</a>.</i>, the shew-bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">154</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 24:9\" href=\"/Leviticus.24.9\"><i>Lev.</i> 24:9</a>.</i>, the remainders of cereal offerings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">155</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 2:3\" href=\"/Leviticus.2.3\"><i>Lev</i>. 2:3</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 6:9-11\" href=\"/Leviticus.6.9-11\">6:9–11</a>.</i>, and the <i>‘omer</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">156</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 23:10-11\" href=\"/Leviticus.23.10-11\"><i>Lev</i>. 23:10–11</a>.</i>. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">157</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city.</i>, First Fruits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">158</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:6:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.3.6.1\">Mishnah <i>Bikkurim</i> 3:10</a>.</i>, what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the <i>nazir’s</i> ram<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">159</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 7:34\" href=\"/Leviticus.7.34\"><i>Lev.</i> 7:34</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 18:11\" href=\"/Numbers.18.11\"><i>Num.</i> 18:11</a>.</i>, and the skins of sacrifices<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">160</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 7:8\" href=\"/Leviticus.7.8\"><i>Lev.</i> 7:8</a>.</i>. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, <i>ḥallah,</i> foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:3\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.3\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:3</a>.</i>, the first shearing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">161</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Deuteronomy 18:4\" href=\"/Deuteronomy.18.4\"><i>Deut.</i> 18:4</a>.</i>, robbery of the proselyte<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">162</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Numbers 5:8\" href=\"/Numbers.5.8\"><i>Num.</i> 5:8</a>. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion.</i>, redemption of the firstborn<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">163</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13\" href=\"/Exodus.13\"><i>Ex.</i> 13</a>.</i>, redemption of the firstborn donkey<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">163</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 13\" href=\"/Exodus.13\"><i>Ex.</i> 13</a>.</i>, <i>ḥērem</i>-dedications, and fields of inheritance<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">164</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Dedicated and not redeemed; <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Leviticus 27:16-21\" href=\"/Leviticus.27.16-21\"><i>Lev.</i> 27:16–21</a>.</i>.",
                "“Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits.” Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">165</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Bikkurim</i> 3:12. The anonymous majority requires them to be given to the people of the watch who have to eat them under the rules of simple sacrifices.</i> “Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill.”",
                "Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Aqiba<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">166</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Mishnah.</i> follows his own opinion since “Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">167</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mishnah <i>Ma‘aser Šeni</i> 2:4.</i>. Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">168</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even if he agrees with the House of Hillel that Second Tithe vetch (in a famine) must be cooked in purity, he holds that vetch in a regular year is only animal fodder, is never soaked, never prepared for impurity, and may be handled by any impure person without consequences.</i>.",
                "Why did they not decree about <i>vicia</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">169</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why was vetch not included originally in the duty to give heave and tithes from vegetables (cf. <i>Ma‘serot</i> 5, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:4:15\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.4.15\">Note 136</a>)?</i>? On their shoes it came out with them from Alexandria<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">170</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Egypt it is simply a weed.</i>. When did they decree about black vetch<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">171</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a kind of <i>vicia;</i> cf. H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 458b.</i>? Rebbi Yose says, in a famine; Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi: In David’s time. They said, both are the same."
            ],
            [
                "<strong>MISHNAH:</strong> Nittai from Tekoa brought <i>ḥallot</i> from Baithur<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">172</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This place has not been convincingly identified. Possibly it is the place of origin of the family Ben Bathyra, the leading rabbinical authorities in the region of Nisibis on the upper Tigris during the centuries of the Mishnaic period.</i> but they did not accept from him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">173</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since it is impure by coming from outside the Land, the rabbinic authorities of the day forbade any Cohen to accept it.</i>. The people of Alexandria brought their <i>ḥallot</i> from Alexandria but they did not accept from them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">174</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Probably near the place צבעים (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Nehemiah 11:34\" href=\"/Nehemiah.11.34\"><i>Neh.</i> 11:34</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"I Samuel 13:18\" href=\"/I_Samuel.13.18\"><i>1S.</i> 13:18</a>), West of Jerusalem.</i>. The people from Hyena Mountain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">175</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Pentecost.</i> brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 23:16\" href=\"/Exodus.23.16\">Ex. 23:16</a>) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">176</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the quote Babli <i>Temura</i> 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331).</i>, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.”<br>Ben-Atitas<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">176</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the quote Babli <i>Temura</i> 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331).</i> brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">177</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Temple, since firstlings can only be brought from places from which heave and tithes are obligatory [<i>Sifry</i> on <i>Deut</i>. 14:23 (#106); <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Bekhorot 53a\" href=\"/Bekhorot.53a\">Babli <i>Bekhorot</i> 53a</a>].</i>. Joseph the Cohen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">178</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Tanna of the Temple period, mentioned in Mishnah <i>Miqwa’ot</i> 10:1 and several <i>baraitot</i> in the Babli.</i> brought his First Fruits as wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">179</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Women, slaves, and minor children who are exempt from bringing the <i>Pesaḥ</i> sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar if they were unable to bring it on the 14th of Nisan, since it is a positive obligation due at a fixed time. It seems that Joseph the Cohen was sufficiently known for the Temple authorities to be afraid that his example would be imitated and in the end create a baseless obligation.</i> 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">180</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Mishnah <i>Demay</i> 6:11.</i>.",
                "<strong>HALAKHAH:</strong> Rebbi Ḥiyya<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">182</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is R. Ḥiyya the elder. The discussion is about the foreign <i>ḥallah</i> which was rejected by the authorities advising the Cohanim.</i> stated: They decided about these and turned them back to their places of origin. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this is impossible. One may not eat it lest people say we saw impure heave being eaten. One may not burn it lest people say we saw pure heave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">183</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While the heave/<i>ḥallah</i> is impure as foreign produce, it did not become impure in the Land and people will not know that it was imported.</i> being burned. One may not return it to its place of origin lest people say we saw heave being exported from the Land. What to do? He lets it lie until Passover eve<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">184</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When all leavened matter, including heave, must be burned. Nobody will notice the special status of this <i>ḥallah</i>.</i> and burns it.",
                "Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I saw Simeon ben Cahana drinking heave wine in Acco<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">185</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This in itself is problematic since part of Acco belongs to the Land, part to Syria (cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6:1:8\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.1.8\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:1, Note 30</a>).</i>. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">186</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since “they decided”, the rabbinical authorities of Acco must have been asked about the situation. It is reasonable to assume that the question was asked before the wine was unloaded.</i>. Where did he drink it? Outside the string<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">187</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The imaginary line defining the territorial waters of the Land; cf. above, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:4:6\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.4.6\">Note 99</a>.</i> or inside? Let us say, outside the string<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">188</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is unlikely since the ship would have had to leave port and go far out to sea.</i>. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Eliezer. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">189</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Demai 3:2:4\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Demai.3.2.4\"><i>Demay</i> 3:2, Notes 52–56</a>. Taking somebody else’s property is not a crime as long as the value of the thing taken is less than the smallest coin in circulation.</i> Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi 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 would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi 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 would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.",
                "“The people of Alexandria brought their <i>ḥallot</i> from Alexandria but they did not accept from them.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, is that not also from Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">190</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Does R. Ḥiyya (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:5:2\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.5.2\">Note 182</a>) simply state a ruling of the Sages of the day in the case of Nittai or does he express a generally valid halakhic statement?</i>? 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.” <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">191</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The discussion is not about the quote from the Mishnah but about Joseph the Cohen who brought his First Fruits as wine and oil.</i> There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">192</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Terumot</i> 11:3. The text of the discussion is also from there, Notes 62–65. The Mishnah states: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for grapes and olives.” This text is implied in the discussion here.</i>, we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi 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, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 23:19\" href=\"/Exodus.23.19\"><i>Ex</i>. 23:19</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 34:26\" href=\"/Exodus.34.26\">34:26</a>), ‘bring!’ ”. 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">193</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But fruits other than grapes and olives may not be made into juice under any circumstances.</i>.",
                "Does it follow him who says the <i>Pesaḥ</i> of women is voluntary<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">194</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That they refused to let Joseph the Cohen bring the Second <i>Pesaḥ</i> for his entire family. The same discussion in <i>Pesaḥim</i> 8:1 (fol. 35d), <i>Qiddušin</i> 1:8 (fol. 61c); cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 93a\" href=\"/Pesachim.93a\">Babli <i>Pesaḥim</i> 93a</a>, <i>Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba</i> 3, <i>Mekhilta R. Simeon bar Ioḥai</i> p. 10.</i>? It was stated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">195</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Tosefta Pesachim (Lieberman) 8:10\" href=\"/Tosefta_Pesachim_(Lieberman).8.10\">Tosephta <i>Pesaḥim</i> 8:10</a>. There, the opinion of R. Meïr is attributed to R. Jehudah.</i>: “A woman may make the First <i>Pesaḥ</i> by herself and the Second joining others<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">196</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Joining a group of men who are biblically obligated; cf. <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:5:1\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.5.1\">Note 177</a>.</i>, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second <i>Pesaḥ</i> by herself, even on the Sabbath<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">197</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the 14th of Iyar is a Sabbath, the sacrifice has precedence over the Sabbath.</i>, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First <i>Pesaḥ</i> joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (<a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Exodus 12:3\" href=\"/Exodus.12.3\"><i>Ex</i>. 12:3</a>) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">198</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Everywhere in rabbinic Hebrew, “house” of a family is the wife.</i>.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” <i>a fortiori</i> “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">199</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Tosephta (Note 195) the reason they turned back Joseph the Cohen was not that he brought his wife and children but his minor grandson. In that version, there is no place for disagreement or special situation.</i>. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">200</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion. The <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Pesachim 93a\" href=\"/Pesachim.93a\">Babli <i>Pesaḥim</i> 93a</a> quotes a Tosephta which includes women impure because of childbirth in the list of persons obligated to observe the Second <i>Pesaḥ</i>.</i>. Did we not hold<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">201</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Menachot 10:6\" href=\"/Mishnah_Menachot.10.6\">Mishnah <i>Menaḥot</i> 10:6</a>, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Menachot 69a\" href=\"/Menachot.69a\">Babli <i>Menaḥot</i> 69a</a>, speaking of First Fruits. There seems to be no reason why the people from Hyena Mountain should not be permitted to bring their first fruits early. The answer is, they would have been permitted had some of them come as individuals. But that the people from an entire region should come publicly to do what is only tolerated is unacceptable.</i>: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">202</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Mishnah Temurah 3:5\" href=\"/Mishnah_Temurah.3.5\">Mishnah <i>Temurah</i> 3:5</a>. Why should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to bring his firstlings?</i>: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.",
                "“Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them.” There<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">203</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ševi‘it</i> 6:6. The discussion is there, <a class=\"refLink\" data-ref=\"Jerusalem Talmud Challah 4:4:17\" href=\"/Jerusalem_Talmud_Challah.4.4.17\">Note 152</a>.</i>, we have stated: “One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land.” Should they be brought as First Fruits? Rebbi 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<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">204</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Therefore, the rabbinic prohibition for heave from Syria is reasonable; there is no reason to prohibit First Fruits from Syria which must personally be delivered to the Temple.</i>."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015",
            "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001901012/NLI"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "תלמוד ירושלמי חלה",
    "categories": [
        "Talmud",
        "Yerushalmi",
        "Seder Zeraim"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Halakhah",
        "Segment"
    ]
}