Jerusalem Talmud Challah Chapter 3

הַאוֹכְלִין עֲרַאי מִן הָעִיסָּה עַד שֶׁתְּגַלְגֵּל בַּחִיטִּים וּתְטַמְטֵם בַּשְׂעוֹרִים. גִּילְגְּלָהּ בַּחִיטִּים וְטִימְטְמָהּ בַּשְּׂעוֹרִין הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה חַיָיב מִיתָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא נוֹתֶנֶת אֶת הַמַּיִם מַגְבָּהַת חַלָּתָהּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח. אוֹכְלִין עֲרַאי מִן הָעִיסָּה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֲרַאי אֲבָל קֶבַע אָסוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַעֲרִים לְפוֹטְרָהּ מִן הַחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִי מִן הָדָא לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָהּ כְּלוּם שֶׁאֲפִילוּ שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנָּה שְׁתַּיִם שָָׁלֹשׁ מִקְרָצוֹת מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ מוּתָּר. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא [רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי זְעִירָה] בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר אַף מָה שֶׁבְּלָגֵין לֹא נִטְבָּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. וְהָדָא אָמְרָה מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִיסָּתוֹ בְטָהֳרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. הָא אִם הָיָה יָכוֹל לֹא בְדָא. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאָסוּר לְאָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת עִיסָּתוֹ קַבִּין. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אַתְּ מְהַלֵּךְ בָּהֶן אַחַר הַטִּימְטוּם. עָשָׂה עִיסָּה מִן הַחִטִּים וּמִן הָאוֹרֶז אַחַר מִי אַתְּ מְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַגִּילְגּוּל אוֹ אַחַר הַטִּימְטוּם. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה חַלָּה כְּמִין גַּבְלוּל. מִשֶּׁתְּגַלְגֵּל בַּחִיטִּים וּתְטַמְטֵם בַּשְׂעוֹרִין. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה מִשֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה גַּבְלוּלִין גַּבְלוּלִין. מָה וּפְלִיג. כָּאן לַהֲלָכָה. כָּאן לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בַּתִירָה אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה מִקְרָצוֹת מִקְרָצוֹת. מָה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בַּתִירָה כִּתְרוּמַת גּוֹרֶן כֵּן תָּרִימוּ אוֹתָהּ. מָה תְרוּמַת גּוֹרֶן נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַגָּמוּר אַף זוֹ נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַגָּמוּר. מֵעַתָּה לִכְשֶּׁתֵּאָפֶה. רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה לֹא הוּקְּשָׁה לְתְרוּמַת הַגּוֹרֶן אֶלָּא לִמְלֶאכֶת הָעִירוּס בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הַנּוֹטֵל חַלָּה מִן הַקַּב רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר חַלָּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ חַלָּה. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶלָּא לְשֶׁעָבַר שֶׁמָּא כַּתְּחִילָּה. וְהָכָא כַּתְּחִילָּה נָן קַיָימִין. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ יָרְדוּ לָהּ בְּשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא נוֹתֶנֶת אֶת הַמַּיִם זוֹ הִיא רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם. דְּתַנֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחוּלִין אוֹסֵר כָּל שֶּׁהוּא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַּרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאִם לָאו רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אוֹמֵר יִקְרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ וְיַעֲלֶה בְּאַחַת וּמֵאָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב גָּבוּלַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִמָּה שֶׁלִּימְּדוּ אֶת הַכֹּהֲנוֹת הָדָא אָמְרָה אִין הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. מָה לִמְּדוּ אֶת הַכֹּהֲונוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה חַלָּה עַל הָעִיסָּה הַזֹּאת וְעַל שְׂאוֹר הַמִּתְעָרֵב בָּהּ וְעַל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵיר בָּהּ וְעַל הַקֶּרֶץ שֶׁנִּיתָּן תַּחְתֶּיהָ לִכְשֶׁתַּעֲלֶה כוּלָּהּ גּוּשׁ אֶחָד הוּקְדָּשׁ זֶה שֶׁבְּיָדִי לְשֵׁם חַלָּה חוּץ מִן הַטָּמֵא שֶׁבָּהּ. וְאָמַר הוּא וְהַטָּמֵא שֶׁבָּהּ. וְיַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל קַפּוֹדָקִּיָּא וְחַד מִן רַבָּנִין חַד אָמַר כָּאן בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת. וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא זָקוּק לְהַעֲלוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁזֶּה מֵבִיאָה וְזֶה מֵבִיאָה כְּמַפְרִישׁ מֵחִיּוּב עַל חִיּוּב. אֲבָל בְּחוֹל תִּיקְּנוּ בְּחַלָּה שֶׁתְּהֵא נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַּטָּמֵא וּשֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף. שֶׁמָּא מִפְּטוֹר עַל הַחִיּוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא בְחוֹל. אֲבָל בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר הִיא וְהַטָּמֵא שֶׁבָּהּ. לָמָּה. עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵעָשֶׂה גּוּשׁ אֶחָד הִיא נִיטֶּלֶת לְשׁוּם חַלָּה. מִשֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה גּוּשׁ אֶחָד הִיא קְדֵישָׁה לְשֵׁם חַלָּה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ חוּץ מִן הַטָּמֵא שֶׁבָּהּ נִמְצָא טֵבֵל טָמֵא מְעוּרָב בַּחַלָּה. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר הוּא וְהַטָּמֵא שֶׁבָּהּ חוּלִין טְמֵאִין הֵן. לֹא מוּטָּב לְהַפְרִישׁ מִפְּטוֹר עַל חִיּוּב וְלֹא יְהֵא טֵבֵל טָמֵא מְעוּרָב בַּחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדּוּמָא וְלֹא לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הִיא קְדֵישָׁה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא קְדֵישָׁה לְמַפְרֵיעָהּ כְּמַפְרֶשֶׁת מֵחִיּוּב עַל חִיּוּב. לָמָּה לִי וּבִלְבָד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שָׁם חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתְנִיתָא קוֹדֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִמְּדוּ אֶת הַכֹּהֲנוֹת.

MISHNAH: One may eat a snack. from the dough until it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough. After it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough, one who eats from it commits a deadly sin. After she added water she may lift its ḥallah starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving ḥallah legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. In Pesaḥim 3:3 (fol. 30a), R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give ḥallah from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing. on condition that there be five quarters of flour starts. The Maimonides autograph, a number of important Mishnah mss., and an Amora in the Halakhah read: on condition that there not 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 ḥallah since in that case, the ḥallah 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. . HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. 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 what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra]. Missing in the Leyden ms. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end. But that 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. means, he who cannot process in purity, because he is unable. Therefore, if he is able this does not apply. This means that it is forbidden for a person to make his dough qab sized. For all other things one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, after what do you go, after rolling or after compacting? Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: ḥallah in a form, 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. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? ( Num . 15:20 ) “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 15:20 defines ḥallah as “start of your doughs” and not “start of your breads”. . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This can be taken as soon as the flour is moistened. R. Simeon ben Laqish must read with Maimonides that not 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 ḥallah . is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab , Rebbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah , but the Sages say it is no ḥallah .” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start which was taken against the rules, it does not mean he will accept that one may start with the intention of giving ḥallah as long as the dough does not contain five quarters. ? 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 from less than 5 quarters invalid cannot accept Mishnah 3:1 (in the Maimonides version.) . Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is ( Num . 15:20 ) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated: 5:15 , quoted in Demay 7:9, Note 137 . Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101 4, Note 62 . .” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot in purity for lay wives. implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it 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. . If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it. .” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place. 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 ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated, it becomes ḥallah . 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 ḥallah established, designating now that extra piece as ḥallah would be satisfying one’s obligation with exempt food and this is forbidden for all types of heave. ? 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 ḥallah . If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah , that part remains ṭevel . Since it is impure and a small quantity, it makes the ḥallah dough forbidden for everybody, including the Cohen. . If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah . 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 at this moment. If the kneaded dough reaches critical mass, the ḥallah becomes dedicated retroactively; there is no ṭevel and no exempt dough remaining. Therefore, the declaration of the Cohenet is valid both on a regular weekday and on a Friday. . Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour? can be given conditionally, the unmixed flour mentioned by the Cohanot should not be limited. ” Rebbi said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot.

נִידְמְעָה עִיסָּתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגְּילָה פְּטוּרָה שֶׁהַמְּדוּמָע פָּטוּר וּמִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה חַיֶיבֶת. נוֹלַד לָהּ סָפֵק טוּמְאָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגְּלָה תֵּיעָשֶׂה בְטוּמְאָה וּמִשֶּׁגִּילְגְּלָָה תֵּיעָשֶׂה בְטָהֳרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה תַּרְתֵּין מִילִּין תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיא רוֹבָא וְאִינּוּן פְּלִיגִין חָדָא עַל חָדָא. טֵבֵל מִנְיָנוֹ בְחוּלִּין וְכָל הַסָּפֵק פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹת תְּרוּמָה. וְקַשְׁיָא אִם טֵבֵל ממנו בְחוּלִּין לָמָּה לִי פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה. וְהָא מִנְיָנוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן טֵבֵל מִנְיָנוֹ בְחוּלִּין. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן אוֹכֶל מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהוּכְשָׁר בְּמַשְׁקֶה וְנָגַע בּוֹ טְבוּל יוֹם אוֹ יָדַיִים מְסוֹאָבִין מַפְרִישִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר בְּטָהֳרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא שְׁלִישִׁי. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל מִנְיָנוֹ בְחוּלִּין. וְכָל הַסָּפֵק פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן נוֹלַד לָהּ סָפֵק עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגְּלָה תֵּיעָשֶׂה בְטוּמְאָה מִשֶּׁגִּילְגְּלָה תֵּעָשֶׂה בְטָהֳרָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטוּמְאָה וְאַל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין בִּסְפֵיקָן. הָתִיב רִבִּי חִיָיה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְהָתַנֵּי אַף בִּשְׁאָר הַמִּינִין כֵּן. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין בִּסְפֵיקָן. רִבִּי זְבִידָא אָמַר אֲנָא בְּעִיתָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא אָדָם טִבְלוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה דִּכְתִיב וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמָתִי. תְּרוּמָה צְרִיכָה שִׁימּוּר. אֵין הַטֵּבֵל צָרִיךְ שִׁימּוּר. מַה אֲנִי מְקַיֵים וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יי לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹֹּהֶן. עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיִינָּתֵן לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֶן בִּכְהוּנָּתוֹ. וְכָאן הוֹאִיל וְאֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לִיתְּנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן בִּכְהוּנָּתוֹ רַשַּׁאי אַתְּ לְטַמוֹתוֹ.

MISHNAH: If the dough became dema‘ 4, Note 27 ). before it was rolled it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah . If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity, the possible impurity already exists while the entire dough is profane. There is no prohibition to cause impurity to profane food ( Babli Niddah 6b ). The ḥallah will be forbidden and has to be burned, as if it were certainly impure. but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity was created, the dough and its ḥallah were pure. If later ḥallah is taken, it is ḥallah which may be impure. It is forbidden to the Cohanim but it is also forbidden to directly make it impure (cf. Pesahim 1:7 ). . HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food 5, Note 19 ). It is stated that ṭevel , produce under the obligation of heave, cannot become impure in the third degree. and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave 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. . This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there 4:1. : “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom 5, Note 68 . A Ṭevul Yom , a formerly severely impure person after immersion in a miqweh 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. or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said Yom 4:1. , he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab . Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state 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 ḥallah {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.” : “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written ( Num . 18:8 ): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm ( Num . 18:28 ): “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, you may make it impure.

הִקְדִּישָׁה עִיסָּתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגְּילָה וּפְדִּיָיתָהּ חַיֶיבֶת. הִקְדִּישָׁתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגְּלָה וְגִילְגְּלָהּ הַגִּיזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדִיָיתָהּ פְּטוּרָה שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת חוֹבָתָהּ הָיְתָה פְטוּרָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ פֵּירוֹתָיו עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּפְדָּיָין חַיָיבִין מִשֶׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּפְדָּאָן חַיָיבִין. הִקְדִּישָׁן עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ וּגְמָרָן הַגִּזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדָיָין פְּטוּרִין שֶׁבִּשְעַת חוֹבָתָן הָיוּ פְטוּרִין. וְלָמָּה תַּנִּינָתָהּ תְּרֵין זִימְנִין. רִבִּי חוּנָה רִבִּי חִיָיה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְּדָיָה אַחַת לְמֵירוּחַ וְאַחַת לִשְׁלִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא וַחֲבֵרַיָּא. חֲבֵרַיָּא אָמְרִין אַחַת לְמֵירוּחַ וְאַחַת לִשְׁלִישׁ. רִבִּי בָּא מְפָרֵשׁ לַחַלָּה לְמֵירוּחַ. וּפֵיאָה לִשְׁלִישׁ. וּמַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר אַחַר שְׁלִישׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן אַתְּ מְהַלֵּךְ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן שָׂדֶה שֶׁהֱבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ לִפְנֵי גּוֹי וּלְקָחָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת פְּטוֹר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין הַתּוֹסֶפֶת חִייוּב. מַיי כְדוֹן. תִּיפְתָּר אוֹ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת אוֹ כְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּקוֹצֵר מִיַּד.

MISHNAH: 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. 4:5; the principle is explained there, Notes 76–81. Since Temple property is common and not individual property, the duties of ḥallah and heave, addressed to individuals, are not existing for the Temple. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. HALAKHAH: 4:5, Notes 82–96 . And why is it stated twice? Rebbi Huna, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi correctly: Bar Pedaiah. 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 Ḥallah for smoothing, at Peah 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.

נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּתַן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עִיסָּה לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. נְתָנָהּ לוֹ מַתָּנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגֵּל חַיֶיבֶת. וּמִשֶּׁגִּילְגֵּל פְטוּרָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה עִם הַנָּכְרִי אִם אֵין בְּשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשִׁיעוּר חַלָּה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיַיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ עִיסָּה אִם נַעֲשִׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיַיר פָּטוּר. וּמִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיַיר חַיָיב. וְאִם סָפֵק חַיָיב וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַקְּרִימָה בַתַּנּוּר. מָה בֵינָהּ לְעִיסַּת אַרְנוֹנָא. שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ חַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה. תַּמָּן בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא שֶׁמָּא יִמָּלֵךְ הַגּוֹי לִיטְּלָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא לְדַעְתּוֹ הִיא תְלוּיָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה מְלַאי שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּפוֹעֲלִין גּוֹיִם עוֹשִׂין לְתוֹכוֹ חַיָיב בְּחַלָּה. מְלַאי שֶׁלְגּוֹי וּפוֹעֲלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין בְּתוֹכוֹ פָּטוּר מִן הַחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּתַן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ עִיסָּה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בְּשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשִׁיעוּר. יֵיעָשֶׂה כְּקַב מִיכָּן וְקַב מִיכָּן וְקַב הַגּוֹי בְּאֶמְצַע. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְאֵינוֹ מְעוּרָב עַל יְדֵי גוֹיִם. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיַיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ פָרָה נִשְׁחֶטֶת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיַיר פָּטוּר מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיַיר חַיָיב. וְאִם סָפֵק פָּטוּר שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר סָפֵק פָּטוּר. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר סָפֵק חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא אִיתְתָּבַת קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי וְאָמַר מִי יֹאמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר נוֹטֵל הוּא דָמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְיַפְרִשׁ תַּמָּן וְיִטּוֹל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי חַלָּה שֶׁהִיא טֵבֵל וּבַעֲוֹן מִיתָה מַפְרִישׁ וְלֹא יִטּוֹל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל שֵׁם הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה שְׁנֵי גוֹיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְחִלְּקוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ זֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ חַיָיבִין שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת חוֹבָה וְנִפְטְרוּ. שְׁנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְחִלְּקוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ זֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ פְּטוּרִין שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת חוֹבָה וְנִפְטְרוּ. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְחִלְּקוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ זֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ. נִיחָא חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָיב. חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי מַהוּ. כְּלוּם חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי חַיָיב לֹא מַחְמַת חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָיב וְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי פָּטוּר. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר קְרִימָה בַתַּנּוּר. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר מוֹדֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לַחֲכָמִים בְּעִיסַּת הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁגִּילְגּוּלָהּ טִיבּוּלָהּ. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר מוֹדֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לַחֲכָמִים בְּעִיסַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁגִּילְגּוּלָהּ פּוֹטְרָהּ. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֵין מֵירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּמְקוֹם הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה הָדָא דְכַהֲנָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מָן דִּאָמַר גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּנִין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דִּכְתִיב וְכָל מַעֲשַׂר הָאָרֶץ מִזֶּרַע הָאָרֶץ. וְהָכָא לֵית כְּתִיב מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ. מִלֶּחֶם וְלֹא כָל לֶחֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל מִן הָדָא דְרַבָּנִין אֲנָן יָלְפִין דְּלֵית הָדָא דְכַהֲנָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כְּמָה דְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי. כֵּן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי וְאֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּמְקוֹם הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah . If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth was misappropriated; cf. Mishnah Terumot 6:1. because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven. HALAKHAH: What is the difference between this and a dough of annona? Is the latter not obligated for ḥallah dough (which has to be delivered to the army; cf. Peah 1, Note 85 ) is obligated since one is responsible until it is delivered.” The Babli ( Pesaḥim 6a ) considers the possibility that delivery of annona may be replaced by a cash payment. In that case, the annona 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. ? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it of the annona is purely rabbinical since people might think that the person baking does not give ḥallah for his own bread. This is not the Yerushalmi’s general attitude; cf. Kilaim 2, Notes 34–40 . . But here it depends on the latter’s opinion. Rebbi Jehudah stated: “If the inventory belongs to a Jew but Gentile workers make it, it is subject to ḥallah . If the inventory belongs to a Gentile and Jewish workers make it, it is not subject to ḥallah.” Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated this: “A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah .” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle? In Mishnah 4:3 it is stated that if a dough is made in three parts of one qab each, two of wheat and one of rice, and the rice dough separates the two pieces of wheat dough, there is no obligation of ḥallah 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. ? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles? There, we have stated 10:4 . The chapter deals with the obligatory gifts to the Cohen from profane slaughter: forearm, jawbone and first stomach ( Deut. 18:3 ). 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. : “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 is questionable, he suggests that the proselyte sell his ḥallah to a Cohen. ! 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 and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant is separated because of religious scruples; no money can be collected since the proselyte cannot prove that he is not obligated. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated. 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 ḥallah . This then are new doughs and obligated. The entire paragraph is based on the anonymous opinion that forming the dough for baking causes the obligation of ḥallah . For Rebbi Aqiba, the questions are irrelevant. because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two qabim, split 7:9) declares the sentence to be meaningless. , and then each of them added to it, are exempted because they were potentially obligated but exempted. A Jew and a Gentile made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew, the question makes sense the way our text is written. ? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt 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. 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. . “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 ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt 10:4 that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the ‘omer 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. Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to ḥallah . . 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 67a . . 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 67a , holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic. ? There is a difference since it is written ( Lev. 27:30 ): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land. 4, Notes 129–131 . ” But is here. not written ( Num. 15:19 ): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread 27:30 it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected. . 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.

הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה מִן הַחִיטִּים וּמִן הָאוֹרֶז אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן חַיֶיבֶת וְיוֹצֵא בָהּ אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. וְאִם אֵין בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן אֵינָהּ חַיֶיבֶת בַּחַלָּה וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה שֶׁהוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא חַלָּה אַחַת עַל הַכֹּל. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ זֵיתִי מַסִּיק שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ עִם זֵיתֵי נִיקּוּף. עִינְּבֵי בָּצִיר עִם עִינְּבֵי עוֹלֵלוֹת אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא תְרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לַכֹּל וּשְׁאָר מַעֲשֵׂר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסַּת חִיטִּים וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ עִיסַּת הָאוֹרֶז אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן חַיֶיבֶת בַּחַלָּה וְאִם לָאו פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה אָמְרוּ הַטֵּבֵל אָסוּר כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. מַתְנִיתָא כִּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם אֵינָהּ חַיֶיבֶת עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָהּ דָּגָן כְּשִׁיעוּר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן אָמְרִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן וְטַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר טַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב הוּנָא עִירֵב בָּהּ שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן וְטַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּמִינִים אֲחֵרִים. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי הִילָא הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסַּת חִיטִּין וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ עִיסַּת הָאוֹרֶז אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן חַיֶיבֶת בַּחַלָּה וְאִם לָאו פְּטוּרָה. בְּגִין נִתְנוּ דְבַתְרָהּ הַטֵּבֵל אָסוּר כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה מְסַמֵּךְ לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁמַע קָלֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא יְתִיב מַתְנֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר טַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן וְטַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן. אָמַר מִחְלְפָה הִיא בְיָדֵיהּ סֵימָן הַוָא לָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרַב הוּנָא. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְחוּלִין קוֹמֵץ וּמַתִּיר אֶת הַשִּׁיְּרִיים לָאֲכִילָה. קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלֶיהָ וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְכִי טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחוּלִין קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יי לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְכֵן אָמְרִית לָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו וְלֹא מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אִין תַּפְשִׁיטָא לָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר אֲפִילוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו דְּתַנִּינָן וְאִם לָאו יוֹצִיא חַלָּה אַחַת עַל הַכֹּל. אָמְרִין לֵית הָדָא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָה תְּתִיבָה עַל רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. מַה בֵין הַמּוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו מָה בֵין הַמּוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְאֵין אוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת תְּרוּמָה כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ חוּלִין שֶׁבּוֹ מְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת חוּלִין כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְרוּמָה הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת כִּתְרוּמָה כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטֵל. וְלֵית הָדָא דְּרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה תְּתִיבָה עַל דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ אִם שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן בָּטֵל אַף שֶׁלְּמַטָּן בָּטֵל. אִם שֶׁלְּמַטָּן לֹא בָטֵל אַף שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן לֹא בָטֵל שֶׁכְּבָר קִידֵּשׁ. תַּנֵּי וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע רוֹבָעִין וּמַשִּׁיךְ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת רוֹבַע שְׂאוֹר שֶׁנִּטְבַּל בִּמְקוֹמוֹ טוֹבֵל אַרְבָּעַת רוֹבָעִין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵין הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אַתְּ מָה שְׁמָעַת מִן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לוֹן אֲנָא לֹא שְׁמָעִית כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא נְפָרֵשׁ מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מִן מִלֵּיהוֹן. דְּתַמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְּכַנֵּיס חַלּוֹת עָל מְנָת לְהַפְרִישׁ וְנָשְׁכוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמֵר חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִמָּה דְתַנִּינָן אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו בְּשֵׁם טָמֵא אוֹכֵל טָהוֹר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ טָהוֹר וְטָמֵא טָהוֹר לְחוּלִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם וְלִתְרוּמָה מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. הֲוֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם תּוֹרָה הוּא. דּוּ אָמַר הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּוּ אָמַר אֵינוֹ תּוֹרָה דְּהוּא אָמַר אֵין הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא אַרְבַּעַת רוֹבָעִין וּמַשִּׁיךְ. אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא מֵעִיסַּת הַנָּשׁוּךְ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בָּעֵי אוֹ מַה פְלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּנָשׁוּךְ מֵאֵילָיו. אֲבָל אִם הִשִּׁיכוֹ בְיָדוֹ כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר הִשִּׁיכוֹ בְיָדוֹ הִיא הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת נֹאמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אָמַר טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל וְרִבִּי הִילָא אָעְלוֹן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא סָבְרִין מֵימַר שְׁנַיִם רָבִין עַל אֶחָד. וְלָא שְׁמִיעִין דְּאָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ. מָה פְלִיגִין לַחוּשׁ לְהַפְרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָיה. מָאן דְּאָמַר טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב אֲרִימָהּ וְנָפְלָת לְאָתָר חוֹרָן אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְהַפְרָשָּׁה שְׁנִיָיה. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב אֲרִימָהּ וְנָפְלָת לְאָתָר חוֹרָן חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְהַפְרָשָּׁה שְׁנִיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא מַפְלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּטֵבֵל שֶׁנִּטְבַּל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל בְּטֵבֵל שֶׁנִּטְבַּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָתַנִּינָן כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ זֵיתִי מַסִּיק שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ עִם זֵיתֵי נִיקּוּף עִינְּבֵי בָצִיר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ עִם עִינְּבֵי עוֹלֵלוֹת. וְלֹּא טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּטְבַּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קִיַימְתִּיהָ בְּשֶׁמֵן שֶׁל זֵיתִי מַסִּיק שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּשֵׁמֵן שֶׁל זֵיתֵי נִיקּוּף. מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְהָתַנִּינָן נוֹטֵל אָדָם כְּדֵי חַלָּה מֵעִיסָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ בְּטָהֳרָה לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלֵךְ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּדַשׁ רוּבָּהּ לְשֵׁם חַלָּה תִבָּטֵּל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר בְּרוֹשֵׁם. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הָרוֹצֶה לְהַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר כְּאַחַת. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר הוּא מְסַיֵים לֹא כְדֵי שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָעְזָר שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה וְזֶה בְּזֶה. חָזַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָעְזָר וְאָמַר לֹא אֲמַרְנָא כְּלוּם. וְלֹא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי אָמַר תְּרוּמַת כְּרִי זֶה וְזֶה בְּזֶה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן נִסְתַּיְימָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁלְשֵׁינִי. לָקַט דְּלַעַת לִהְיוֹת מַפרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלֵךְ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵט וּבָא וְרוֹשֵׁם עַד כָּאן תְּרוּמָה וְעַד כָּאן תְּרוּמָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לוֹקֵט וּמְחַשֵּׁב כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא לָמוּד. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר עַד כָּאן תְּרוּמָה וְעַד כָָּאן תְּרוּמָה טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. מָאן דְּאָמַר לוֹקֵט וּמְחַשֵּׁב כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא לָמוּד אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא זָקוּק לִיתֵּן לַשֵּׁבֶט בֵּינֵיהֶן. הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִתְרוֹם אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ חָבִיּוֹת מִן הַבּוֹר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. וְכֵן הַשְּׁנִיָיה וְכֵן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ תְרוּמָה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֶקֵּיף בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר אֵין תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַחֲלִיף מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשֹׁנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר אֵין תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָה וְאֵינוֹ מְעוּרָב עַל יְדֵי גִידִין.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken for ḥallah but most of it is exempt from ḥallah . , if he can provide for it from another place Since ḥallah as a heave must be given from what is earmarked, the Tosephta (2:2 ) requires that one make a new dough and put it in the same place as the problematic ṭevel dough to earmark it and take there the full ḥallah for the new dough and a proportionate amount for the offending sourdough. Maimonides in his Commentary follows the Tosephta but in his Code ( Bikkurim 7:11) he requires simply that the second dough be subject to ḥallah . The latter is the reasonable interpretation of the Mishnah. he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything from the ṭevel 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 ṭevel ; for biblical standards the sourdough has disappeared in the dough whose obligation was already satisfied. Therefore, the ṭevel extended to the entire dough is rabbinic in character and the rabbinic obligation of ḥallah overrides the, in this case rabbinic, requirement to give from obligated dough. . Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say disappears in a majority of permitted food. If the prohibition were biblical, ṭevel sour dough in rice cake would have to be treated according to the previous Mishnah. ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since 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. “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 baraita 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. A Mishnah 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 it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that but of which ḥallah was not yet taken. That sourdough is ṭevel for ḥallah and subject to more restrictive rules. In this case, “can be tasted” means the minute amounts discussed in Terumot 10, Halakhot 7–10; the quote is irrelevant for the discussion here. : “ Ṭevel 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 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. 6:9 ). 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. 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 ṭevel , ? Do I read for this ( Lev . 2:3 ): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read ( Num . 18:28 ) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen” mixed with profane flour can be put in order by taking the heave from itself. ? 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 mixed with profane can be used to put certain ṭevel in order! then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”. They said, 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 ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear in the profane is small, it has disappeared by biblical standards and it is not legally ṭevel. In this case, ṭevel 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. . When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear 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. 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. . Rebbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear Since part of ṭevel is going to be heave, this also is falling into its own kind and no part of it can be disregarded. . But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified. It was stated sour dough in a dough which already is fully profane. A similar statement is in Tosephta 2:2 : “If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which ḥallah 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 ṭevel dough is made from exactly one quarter. Therefore, if one makes a new dough of exactly one qab which is made to “bite” the profane dough, one has a total of 5 quarters of obligation and may take only ḥallah of the obligated, not from the already exempt. This means in general that if the amount of sour dough is x , the amount needed to avoid giving ḥallah for everything is (5 quarters - x ). In this way, neither does one take ḥallah from another place nor does one have to take ḥallah for everything. : 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 ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel . This means that biting is biblical (or Tosephta) quoted in the previous paragraph, that a dough prepared from 4 quarters if it bites a dough with 1 quarter of ṭevel produces dough obligated for ḥallah. . 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. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. 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 1:1. The loaves cannot be baked yet; the Tanna must hold that ṭevel does not have the status of profane food. The Ṭevul Yom ( Chapter 2, Note 37 , Terumot 5, Note 68 ) is almost pure; his touch disables heave but has no influence on profane food. According to the House of Hillel, the touch of a Ṭevul Yom disables the ḥallah -heave in one loaf only. : “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ ḥallah ] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” 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]”. 22:7 . The Ṭevul Yom may eat of the loaves even before sundown (after ḥallah was taken). This is obvious for those who hold that ṭevel is like profane in matters of contamination with impurity. 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 Ṭevul Yom, these derivative impurities can never be biblical. . Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure. 22:6–7 . ; 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 ṭevul yom is biblical is based on biblical verses, for all other forms of impurity the rules of the Ṭevul Yom do not apply; biting for them is a conduit of impurity. . 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 because of another dough biting the one it was taken from, the ṭevel is only rabbinical and nothing can be inferred about the biblical status of biting (R. Eliahu Fulda). . 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: ṭevel disappears in a plurality 4:1. Note 10 , Ma‘serot 5:2, Note 25 ff. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel 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 ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state in the style of the Mishnah, probably dealing with several doughs in one vessel where for all of them there is a doubt and ḥallah cannot be taken from another place. This can only happen if the ṭevel is a small part of the entire dough; in all cases of the Mishnah there is a plurality of profane matter. : “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 ṭevel 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 and profane food, with more profane than ṭevel, 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 dema ‘ 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 dema‘ and the heave has to be lifted. . For him who says ṭevel 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 ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel 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 ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? 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 ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken since from demay flour ḥallah may be taken from the pure for the impure. to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah , should not the remainder and according to R. Simeon ben Laqish should disappear in whatever the plurality is. disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. Then the remainder cannot disappear in the ḥallah . . You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together 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. .” 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 3:5, Note 60 . The rabbis require that the places of heaves and tithes should be indicated in detail. . 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. “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, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe. “ 5:1 . 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 dema‘ . Since the statement is the continuation of the one about pumpkins, one has to say that an amount of ṭevel 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. 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, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. 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 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. 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?