Jerusalem Talmud Challah Chapter 4

שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁינֵי קַבִּין וְנָגְעוּ זֶה בַזֶּה אֲפִילוּ הֵן מִמִּין אֶחָד פְּטוּרִין. וּבִזְמָן שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלְאִשָּׁה אַחַת מִין בְּמִינוֹ חַיָיב וּשְׁלֹא בְמִינוֹ פָּטוּר. אֵי זֶהוּ מִין בְּמִינוֹ הַחִטִּים אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת עִם הַכֹּל אֶלָּא עִם הַכּוּסְמִין. הַשְּׂעוֹרִין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם הַכֹּל חוּץ מִן הַחִטִּין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁינֵי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְתָם אִשָּׁה אַחַת אֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת שְׁתַּיִם מַקְפִּידוֹת הֵן. אִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהִיא מַקְפֶּדֶת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן מַקְפִּידוֹת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָם כְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת. אִם אֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת לָמָּה הִוא עוֹשָׂה אוֹתָהּ כִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֶׁאֵין לָהּ מָקוֹם לָלוּשׁ. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר הָיָה לָהּ מָקוֹם הֵיכָן לָלוּשׁ וְהִוא עוֹשָׂה אוֹתָן כִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת מַקְפֶּדֶת הִיא. נָקִי וְקֵיבָר מַקְפֶּדֶת הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר שְׁתֵּי דֵיעוֹת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי אֲפִילוּ רוֹצוֹת. יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן חִיבּוּר בַּחַלָּה וְאֵינָן חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם. חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וְאֵינָן חִיבּוּר בְּחַלָּה. חִיבּוּר בְּחַלָּה דְּתַנִּינָן בִּזְמָן שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלְאִשָּׁה אַחַת מִין בְּמִינוֹ חַיָיב וּשְׁלֹא בְמִינוֹ פָּטוּר. וְאֵין חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הַמְּכַנִּיס חַלּוֹת עַל מְנָת לְהַפְרִישׁ וְנָשְׁכוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינָן חִיבּוּר. בִּטְבוּל יוֹם דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן בָּשָׂר הַקֹּדֶּשׁ שֶׁקָּרַם עָלָיו הַקּוּפָה. הָא שְׁאָר כָּל הַקּוּפָה חִיבּוּר וְאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְחֹתְכוֹ. וְאֵינָן חִיבּוּר בְּחַלָּה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה עַל מְנָת לְחַלְּקָהּ בָּצֵק פְטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. מַהוּ שִׁיֵירְתָה רַב הוּנָא אָמַר אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ הַשִּׁיפוֹן מִין כּוּסְמִין מִצְטָרֵף עִם הַחִיטִּים. שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל מִין שְׂעוֹרִין אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף עִם הַחִיטִּים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי כָּל הַמִּינִין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהַךְ תַּנָּיָיא בָּרְיָא מַה בֵּין נָשׁוּךְ מַה בֵּין בָּלוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוּהּ דְּרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה בְּשֶׁחִלְּקָן וְהוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן. נְשׁוּכִין חַיָיבִין. בְּלוּלִין פְּטוּרִין.

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another. HALAKHAH: “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind 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. . They gave to one woman who minds the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? 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 makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour], she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women 1:7 , fol. 17a; Babli Giṭṭin 90a ) 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. . Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree? Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom makes heave (including ḥallah ) unusable and sacrifices impure ( Demay 6:6, Notes 138,140). But since the ṭevul yom has been purified, only his immediate touch is damaging, not the touch by an intermediary object. Therefore, if the ṭevul yom touches a loaf of ḥallah , he makes the ḥallah inedible, including everything connected with it. It is now stated that the rules of connection regarding the obligation of ḥallah are not identical with the rules governing an eventual disqualification of the ḥallah taken. , [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah . A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there Yom 1:1, dealing with a Cohen who collects ḥallah from several households to carry home in one basket but does not intend to eat the different morsels together. : “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom , but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom .” We also stated there yom touches one piece of ḥallah , that piece is unusable but all the others are unimpaired. : “Sanctified meat on which the sediment Yom 2:5: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed; if a ṭevul yom 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. congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection they would not be considered one as indicated by the next statement by R. Joḥanan. even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah ; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah . Was is left 1:1 , combines spelt and wheat, there are only two kinds as far as the rules of ḥallah are concerned and the statement of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri seems to be meaningless. ? 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.” 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 the obligation of ḥallah is new and valid. The exemption of the mixed dough is explained in Chapter 3, Note 72 . , exempt when mixed.

שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְקַב אוֹרֶז וְקַב תְּרוּמָה בְאֶמְצַע אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. דָּבָר שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתוֹ בְאֶמְצַע מִצְטָרְפִין שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵיב בַּחַלָּה. קַב חָדָשׁ וְקַב יָשָׁן שֶׁנָּשְׁכוּ זֶה בְזֶה רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר יִטּוֹל מִן הָאֶמְצַע. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. הַנּוֹטֵל חַלָּה מִן הַקַּב רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר חַלָּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ חַלָּה. שְׁנֵי קַבִּין שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתָן שֶׁל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְשֶׁל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְחָזַר וַעֲשָׂאָן עִיסָה אַחַת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַיְיבִין נִמְצָא חוּמְרוֹ קוּלּוֹ. נִיתְנֵי אוֹרֶז וְלֹא נִיתְנֵי תְרוּמָה. אִילּוּ תַנִּינָן אוֹרֶז וְלֹא תַנִּינָן תְּרוּמָה הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין אוֹרֶז עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִמִּינוֹ אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. תְּרוּמָה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִיא מִמִּינָהּ מִצְטָרֵף. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי תְרוּמָה. אוֹ אִילּוּ תַנִּינָן תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא תַנִּינָן אוֹרֶז הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין תְּרוּמָה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִיא אֵינָהּ נִגְרֶרֶת אֵינָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת. אוֹרֶז עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא נִגְרָר מִצְטָרֵף. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי אוֹרֶז וְצוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי תְרוּמָה. קַב אוֹרֶז אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף קַב מְדוּמָּע אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. קַב תְּרוּמָה אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. קַב הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף. קַב מִין אַחֵר מְצָרֵף. קַב אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת מְצָרֵף. קַב חָדָשׁ מְצָרֵף. קַב דָּבָר שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתוֹ מִן הָאֶמְצַע מִצְטָרֵף. וְרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי קַב חַלָּה מַהוּ שֶׁיְּצָרֵף. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָׁאוּל קַב הֶקְדֵּשׁ מְצָרֵף. קַב חַלָּה אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף. מַה בֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמַה בֵין חַלָּה. הֶקְדֵּשׁ רָאוּי הוּא לִפְדּוֹתוֹ וּלְחַיְיבוֹ. חַלָּה אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִפְדּוֹתָהּ וּלְחַיְיבָהּ. חֲצִי קַב חִטִּים וַחֲצִי קַב שְׂעוֹרִים וַחֲצִי קַב כּוּסְמִין נוֹטֵל מִן הַכּוּסְמִין לְפִי מַה שֶׁהֵן. קַב חִטִּים וְקַב שְׂעוֹרִים וְקַב כּוּסְמִין תּוֹרֵם מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶׁהוּא. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא קַב חִטִּין קַב שְׂעוֹרִין קַב כּוּסְמִין הָא קַב חִטִּים וְקַב שְׂעוֹרִין וְקַב כּוּסְמִין בְּאֶמְצַע לֹא בְדָא. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה חֲבֵרוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין בָּעוּ מַה בֵּין כּוּסְמִין בְּאֶמְצַע מַה בֵּין שְׂעוֹרִין בְּאֶמְצַע. רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אֵין הַכּוּסְמִין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם הַחִטִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְמִינוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא מְדַמֶּה לוֹ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינוֹ מְדַמֶּה לוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי אַף לְעִנְיָין מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה כֵן. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן הָיוּ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ חִייוּב בִּכְפָר חֲנַנְיָה וְחָמֵשׁ חִיּוּב בִּכְפָר עוֹתְנַי. וְחָמֵשׁ פָּטוּר בְּצִיפּוֹרִין. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן דָּבָר שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתוֹ מִן הָאֶמְצַע מְצָרֵף. אוֹף הָכָא כֵן. אִין תֵּימַר שַׁנְיָיא הִיא חַלָּה שֶׁהוּא כְנָשׁוּךְ וְהָהֵן שִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל לֹא כְנָשׁוּךְ הוּא. מָצִינוּ חַלָּה מֵהֲלָכָה לֹא מָצִינוּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה מֵהֲלָכָה. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כּוּסְמִין וְחִיטִּין שְׁנֵי מִינִים הֵן. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא מְדַמֶּה לוֹ אַתְּ אוֹמֵר מְצָרֵף. חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנָן כּוּסְמִין וְחִיטִּין שְׁנֵי מִינִין וְאֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם טוֹעִין לוֹמַר שֶׁתּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן מִין אֶחָד הוּא אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן אַף הוּא סָבוּר לוֹמַר שֶׁתּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַפֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן. עָבַר וְהִפְרִישׁ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. וְרַבָּנִין מְדַמִּין לָהּ לִתְבוּאָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ. עָבַר וְהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנָּה חַלָּה אֵינָהּ חַלָּה. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר אֵינָן דּוֹמִין לֹא לַפֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן וְלֹא לִתְבוּאָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ. אֶלָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה עַל הַפֵּירוֹת הָאֵילוּ לִכְשֶׁיִּתְלְשׁוּ וְנִתְלְשׁוּ. וְרַבָּנִין מְדַמִּין לָהּ לוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה עַל הַפֵּירוֹת הָאֵילּוּ לִכְשֶׁיִּתְלְשׁוּ. הֲווֹן בָּעֵי מֵימַר מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה נִיטַּל חַלָּה מִקַּב חַלָּה מֵהֲלָכָה. הָא מִדְבַר תּוֹרָה לֹא. מִן מַה דְתַנִּינָן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַיְיבִין הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. נִמְצָא חוּמְרוֹ קוּלּוֹ. אִית תַּנּוֹיֵי תַּנֵּי קוּלּוֹ חוּמְרוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר חוּמְרוֹ קוּלּוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. קוּלּוֹ חוּמְרוֹ רַבָּנִין.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine 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 ḥallah . . If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah . If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another as noted in the previous Halakhah, it is forbidden to give heave from one year’s harvest for another year’s (Mishnah Terumot 1:5). Everybody agrees that ḥallah must be given from both kinds of grain; the question is only how this has to be done. , Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity from less than the minimal volume as genuine ḥallah. becomes a leniency. HALAKHAH: Should one have stated “rice” but not “heave”? If we had stated “rice” but not “heave”, we would have said that rice does not combine because it is not of that kind , but heave, which is of that kind, should combine. It is necessary to state “heave.” If we had stated “heave” but not “rice”, we would have said that heave does not combine because it is not dragged in dough containing heave flour is exempt from ḥallah ( Mishnah 3:2 ). , but rice, which is dragged in if it tastes like bread ( Mishnah 3:6 ). , should combine. It is necessary to state “rice” and “heave”. “ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind in the Leyden version follows the Tanna of the reformulated statement ( Note 19 ); the Rome ms. reads אינו מצרף “it does not combine”; possibly following the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah 2 . combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah ? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated is a heave; then R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question is answered in the Mishnah. . “Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed here, that the entire heave is taken from spelt since that combines with both wheat and barley. . A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed. of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab 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 ḥallah and heave are different; the discussion shows that this is not the position of the Yerushalmi. It follows that the baraita represents a tradition different from the Tosephta. It is not necessary to assume with Maimonides that the qab here is a larger measure, equal to 5/4 standard qab which causes separate obligations of ḥallah. As R. Eliahu Fulda explains, the barley in the middle is also subject to ḥallah; it is not different from dough of which ḥallah already was taken. Therefore, the obligation of ḥallah exists and has to be satisfied following the rules of heave. ” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. 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 27:32 ; from the verse it is clear that the minimum number of newborn animals subject to tithe is 10. The Mishnah ( Bekhorot 9:7 ) 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 mil. It is stated that the distance from Kefar Ḥananiah to Sepphoris is 16 mil, from Sepphoris to Kefar Othnai also 16 mil. Tosephta ( Bekhorot 7:3 ) and Babli ( Bekhorot 55a ) 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 Mishnah 3 . ? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Ḥananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that ḥallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find ḥallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice. Is 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 Mishnah 2:4. . 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 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 ḥallah be taken in such a way that dough from both sides is taken; the difference between him and the rabbis is only whether ḥallah can be taken together or must be taken separately. . Rebbi Aqiba compares it to not fully processed produce; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is heave 1:10. . But the rabbis compare it to produce not yet one-third ripe; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is not heave 1:3 , following R. Eleazar. . They had second thoughts and said, it is similar neither to not fully processed produce nor to produce not yet one-third ripe 1:3 . ! 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 tentatively designated for the case the dough will reach critical size cannot be ḥallah if no obligated dough is available at the time of designation. . They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab 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 is subject to biblical ḥallah in everybody’s opinion, R. Aqiba must declare ḥallah from a single qab as biblical ḥallah. In R. Aqiba’s statement, “one qab ” must be taken litterally; it is not an expression meaning “less than 5/4 qab ” since in Mishnah Idiut 1:2 , Shammai is reported to fix the obligation of ḥallah at one qab (and Hillel at 2 qabim ). R. Aqiba must hold that any amount which is declared ḥallah in any tradition must be recognized as biblical ḥallah (Maimonides in his Commentary.) . “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.

נוֹטֵל אָדָם כְּדֵי חַלָּה מֵעִיסָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ בְּטָהֳרָה לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלֵךְ חַלַּת דְּמַיי עַד שֶׁתִּסְרַח שֶׁחַלַּת דְּמַיי נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וְשֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף. מַהוּ עַד שֶׁתִּסְרַח מֵאוֹכֶל אָדָם אוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּפְסוֹל מֵאוֹכֶל הַכֶּלֶב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא נִסְרְחָה מֵאוֹכֶל אָדָם מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין וְשׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ בְּטוּמְאָה. מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין וְאַתְּ אָמְרָת מֵאוֹכֶל הַכֶּלֶב. אֶלָּא מֵאוֹכֶל אָדָם. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁתּוֹרְמִין מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה. וְאַתְיָיא כַּיי דָּמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן שֶׁתּוֹרְמִין מֵעָלֵי אִיסְתָּפֻנִינֵי עַל הָאִיסְטָּפֻנִינֵי בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאוֹכְלִין אוֹתָהּ. כְּהָדָא גַּמְלִיֵיל זֶוּגָא אִינְשִׁי מְתַקְּנָה אִיסְטָפֻנִינִיתֵיהּ. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֵיהּ אִית תַּמָּן קְנִיבָה אַפְרִישׁ מִן קְנוּבְתָהּ. תַּנֵּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלְדְּמַאי. אִיתָא חֲמִי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלְוַודַּאי נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלְדְּמַאי לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּסָפֵק תְּרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין סָפֵק הִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה סָפֵק לֹא הִפְרִישׁ כְּמַה דְתֵימַר מִן הַוַּדַּאי עַל הַדְּמַאי תְּרוּמָה לֹא תֵאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא תְרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת וְאָמַר מִן הַדְּמַאי עַל הַדְּמַאי כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כַּרְסָנָא כָּאן בְּרוֹצֶה לְאוֹכְלָהּ כָּאן בְּרוֹצֶה לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ.

MISHNAH: A person may take for ḥallah from a dough prepared in purity and from which ḥallah has not yet been taken, to use it continuously for ḥallah of demay of demay ” is since ḥallah has the status of Great Heave which everybody is supposed to have given. It seems, with R. Simson, that “ ḥallah of demay ” is ḥallah taken for bread bought from an untrustworthy baker, as described in Mishnah Demay 5:1. According to Maimonides, in his Code and the later version of his Commentary, “ ḥallah of demay ” refers to any ḥallah whose status as biblical obligation is in doubt. until it decays, since ḥallah of demay may be taken from pure for impure and from what is not earmarked 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., ḥallah ) does not have to be earmarked. . HALAKHAH: What means “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food? Let us hear from the following 9:10 : “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 Babli ( Pesaḥim 15b , 45b ) quotes a similar but anonymous baraita. It follows that the Babli decides with R. Ḥananiah the Second of the Cohanim but the Yerushalmi against him. Maimonides ( Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14) follows the Yerushalmi, against the protests of R. Abraham ben David. : “If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity.” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food. This means (i. e., heave) for freshly prepared dough. 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 carrots2, Note 63 . 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 demay . From the text one may understand that the baraita stated that heave of the tithe of demay follows the same rules as ḥallah for demay dough as spelled out in the Mishnah. .” Come and see, since certain heave of the tithe may be taken from pure for impure 2:5 ; cf. Terumot 2, Note 9 . , heave of the tithe of demay 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 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, demay is used in a loose, non-technical way. . As you say, “from certain produce for demay , it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it;” 5:10, Note 144 . he asserts that from demay for demay it is the same. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana said, there 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 ḥallah has to be burned in the end when it becomes inedible. he wants to eat it, here he wants to burn it.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ אָרִיסִין לְגוֹיִם בְּסוּרִיָּא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵיב בְּפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פּוֹטֵר. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת בְּסוּרִיָּא. וְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר חַלָּה אַחַת אָחֲזוּ קוּלּוֹ שֶׁלְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְקוּלּוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. חָזְרוּ לִנְהוֹג כְּדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּשְׁתֵּי דְּרָכִים. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחַלָּה מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַד גְּזִיב חַלָּה אַחַת. מִגְּזִיב וְעַד הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנֹס שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת אָחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלְאוּר יֵשׁ לָהּ שִׁיעוּר וְשֶׁלְכֹּהֵן אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר. מֵהַנָּהָר וּמֵאֲמָנֹס וְלִפְנִים שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת אָחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלְאוּר אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר וְשֶׁלְכֹּהֵן יֵשׁ לָהּ שִׁיעוּר. וּטְבוּל יוֹם אוֹכְלָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. וַאֲסוּרָה לְזָבִין וּלְזָבוֹת לְנִידּוֹת וּלְיוֹלְדוֹת וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן וְנִיתֶּנֶת לְכָל כֹּהֵן. אֵילּוּ נוֹתְנִין לְכָל כֹּהֵן הַחֲרָמִים וְהַבְּכוֹרוֹת וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֶּן וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וְהַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּיבָה וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וְשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה וְקָדְשֵׁי מִקְדָּשׁ וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בְּבִיכּוּרִים. כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא חִיֵיב רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בַּחֲכִירֵי אָבוֹת כְּגוֹן מֵהִלֵּל דְּבֵית רִבִּי. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָׁאוּל קְנָס קְנָסוֹ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. מָה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן אָרִיס לְשָׁעָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר קְנָס חַיָיב. מָאן דְּאָמַר בַּחֲכִירֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת פָּטוּר. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם בְּסוּרִיָּא צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלַּת דְּמַיי דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִיש חַלַּת דְּמַיי. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וְיֵאוּת אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַה טַעֲמְהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל תְּרוּמָה בָאָרֶץ כָּךְ לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל חַלָּה בְסוּרִיָּא. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר חִיָּה בָּעֵי כְּמַה דְאִתְאֲמָרַת שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת בְּסוּרִיָּא וְדִכְוָותָהּ שְׁתֵּי תְרוּמוֹת בְּסוּרִיָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי חַלָּה אֵין אֲחַרֶיהָ כְּלוּם תְּרוּמָה יֵשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאת אוֹתָהּ הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ טְבוּלָה לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. בִּיקֵּשׁ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בֶּן רִבִּי לְהַנְהִיג אֶת הַדְּמַיי בְּסוּרִיָּא וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לוֹ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ מֵעַתָּה יְחוּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל חַלָּתָן. מִחְלְפָה שִיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תַּמָּן אָמַר אֵימַת קֳדָשִׁים עָלָיו וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לַכֹּהֵן דָּבַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן וָכָא הוּא אוֹמֵר הָכֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלְאוּר נָתַן לוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא תַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יְחוּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל חַלָּתָן. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם וּמִן הַאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר לַשּׁוּק צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלַּת דְּמַיי. מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְהַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֶצלוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלַּת דְּמַיי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה חֲבֵרוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין בְּמִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ לְעִיסָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְהֵן שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתוֹ מְגַבֵּל אֶצֶל אַחֵר. חֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים בְּסוּרִיָּא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלַּת דְּמַיי. אִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁרוֹב מִכְנָסוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלַּת דְּמַיי. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא כָּאן בָּאָרֶץ כָּאן בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי חוּנָא אָמַר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא מִגְּזִיב וְעַד הַנָּהָר מִגְּזִיב וְעַד אֲמָנֹס. תַּנֵּי אֵי זוּ הִיא הָאָרֶץ וְאֵי זוּ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. כָּל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹפֵעַ מִטַּוְורוֹס אֲמָנֹס וְלִפְנִים אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִטַּוְורוֹס אֲמָנֹס וּלְחוּץ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. הַנֵּיסִין שֶׁבְּיָם אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ חוּט מָתוּחַ מִטַּוְורוֹס אֲמָנֹס וְעַד נַחַל מִצְרַיִם. מֵהַחוּט וְלִפְנִים אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מֵהַחוּט וּלְחוּץ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא כְּנֶגֶד אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּגְבוּל יָם וְהָיָה לָכֶם הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל וּגְבוּל זֶה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם גְּבוּל יָם. שֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין מֵהֶן אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אוֹתָן כְאִילּוּ חוּט מָתוּחַ מִקֶּפַלָּרִיָּא וְעַד אוֹקֵיָינוֹס מִנַּחַל מִצְרַיִם וְעַד אוֹקֶיָינוֹס מֵהַחוּט וְלִפְנִים אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מֵהַחוּט וּלְחוּץ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בַּר שׁוּנֵם לִכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ הַגָּלִיּוֹת לְטַוְורוֹס אֲמָנֹס הֵן עֲתִידוֹת לוֹמַר שִׁירָה. מַה טַעַם תָּשׁוּרִי מֵרֹאשׁ אֲמָנָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַּנֵּי הַיַּרְדֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִית תַּנֵּי הַיַּרְדֵּן מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אִית תַּנֵּי הַיַּרְדֵּן גְּבוּל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר הַיַּרְדֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַעֲרָבָה וְהַיַּרְדֵּן וּגְבוּל. מָאן דְּאָמַר הַיַּרְדֵּן מֵחוּץ לָאָרֶץ וְהַיַּרְדֵּן יִגְבּוֹל אוֹתוֹ לִפְאַת קֵדְמָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר הַיַּרְדֵּן גְּבוּל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. עָשָׂה יַרְדֵּן שֶׁנָּטַל מִזֶּה וְנָתַן לְזֶה מַה שֶׁנָּטַל נָטַל וּמַה שֶׁנָּתַן נָתַן. וּמַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנַעֲשֶׂה בְסוּרִיָּא חֶזְקָתוֹ לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת וְלִשְׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לְחַזָקוֹת וּלְבִיעוּרִין וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְהוּא שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ עָפָר. שֶׁלְאוּר יֵש לָהּ שִׁיעוּר שֶׁהוּא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְיַפְרִישׁ לָאוּר וְלֹא יַפְרִישׁ לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִים רָאִינוּ תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה נִשְׂרֶפֶת. וְיַפְרִישׁ לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא יַפְרִישׁ לָאוּר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִים רָאִינוּ תְרוּמָה טְמֵיאָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לִכְשֶׂהוּא בָא לְכָאן הוּא נִשְׁאָל. וְזוֹ וְזוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן הוּא. מוּטָּב לְרַבּוֹת בְּנֶאֱכֶלֶת וְלֹא לְרַבּוֹת בְּנִשְׂרֶפֶת. אוּף רִבִּי יוֹסֵה מוֹדֶה בָהּ חוֹמֶר הוּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַטּוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה מִגּוּפוֹ. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּבוֹצְרָה שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה רוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִיא עוֹלָה בְּפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ בְּאֶחָד וְאֶחָד. דְּתַנִּינָן וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבַּגּוֹלָה הָיוּ מַפְרִישִׁין תְּרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ הָרוֹבִין וּבִטְּלוּ אוֹתָן. מָאן אִינּוּן הָרוֹבִין תַּרְגְּמוֹנִיָּא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל חַלַּת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ וּתְרוּמָת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ אוֹכֵל וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַפְרִישׁ. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל לֹא חָשׁוּ אֶלָּא לִתְרוּמַת דָּגָן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל לֹא חָשׁוּ אֶלָּא לִתְרוּמָה בִּלְבָד. אֲבָל לִירָקוֹת אוֹ אֲפִילוּ לִתְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה לֹא חָשׁוּ. כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּי אִיסִּי בֶּן עֲקַבְיָה אוֹמֵר מַעְשְׂרוֹת לִירָקוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. תַּנִּי חַלַּת הַגּוֹי בָּאָרֶץ וּתְרוּמַת הַגּוֹי בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ וְאוֹכֵל וְנִיתֶּנֶּת לְכָל כֹּהֵן בֵּין לְכֹהֵן חָבֵר בֵּין לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ. יֵשׁ מֵהֶן נוֹתְנִין לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן נוֹתְנִין לְכָל כֹּהֵן. הַבְּכוֹרוֹת וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר וּשְׁאָר כּוּלְּהֹן לְכָל כֹּהֵן. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא מְנַיִין שֶׁחוֹרָמִים לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר. אָמַר לֵיהּ כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחוּזָתוֹ. אֲחוּזָה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר בְּגִין דִּכְתִיב לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחוּזָתוֹ. (אֲחוּזָה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר.) וְהָכְתִיב וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּיבָה. מֵעַתָּה לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיי. מַה קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר אַף חֲרָמִים לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר. מֵעַתָּה אַף הַמְּיטַלְטְלִין. דְּתַנֵּי מַה בֵּין הַקַּרְקָעוֹת לַמְּטַלְטְלִין. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַקַּרְקָעוֹת לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר וְהַמְּטַלְטְלִין לְכָל כֹּהֵן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אִשֵּׁי יי וְנַחֲלָתוֹ יֹאכֵלוּן. מַה אִישִׁים לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר אַף נַחֲלָה לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מַתָּנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו. עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. עֶשֶׂר בִּגְבוּלִין. אֵילּוּ הֵן שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר וְחַטָּאת הָעוֹף וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּשְׁיֵרֵי מְנָחוֹת וְהָעוֹמֶר. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלֵם הַבְּכוֹרוֹת וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים וְהַמּוּרָם מִן הַתּוֹדָה וּמֵאֵיל נָזִיר וְעוֹרוֹת הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. אֵילּוּ הֵן שֶׁבִּגְבוּלִין הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְחַלָּה וְהַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּיבָה וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֶּן. וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וַחֲרָמִים וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָה. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר בְּבִיכּוּרִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דּוּ רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר אֵין נוֹתְנִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא לְחָבֵר בְּטוֹבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דּוּ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ שַׁנְיָיה הִיא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מָצוּי לְטַמֵּא אוֹכְלֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי מַה לֹא גָזְרוּ עַל הַבִקִיָיה. בְּמִנְעֲלֵיהֶן יָצָאת עִמָּהֶן מֵאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה. אֵימָתַי גָּזְרוּ עַל הַכַּרְשִׁינִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בִּימֵי רְעָבוֹן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בִּימֵי דָּוִד. אָמְרִין הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria 7, Note 119 . 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. ; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria to the Land ( Num . 15:18–19 ). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give ḥallah 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. but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah . They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah . The Land of Israel 6:1, Note 3 , for the geographic details. up to Akhzib, one ḥallah . From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus 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. , two ḥallot , one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure 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 ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7 . , the one for the Cohen has no measure to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah. . From Euphrates or Amanus inside 6:1, Note 3 . , two ḥallot , one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of ḥallah even during the First Commonwealth. , the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. . Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion is no true heave, cf. Berakhot 1, Note 3 . . But it mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body. is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux. 15:1–15 , 25–30. , and to women during menstruation. 15:19–24 . or after childbirth. 12:1–8 . . It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem -dedications 18:14 . According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [ Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq 12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a , Arakhin 28a ]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion ( Arakhin 29a ). , firstlings 13:1 , Num. 18:15 . , the redemption money for a [firstborn] son 13:1 , 13 , Num. 3:47 , 18:15 . , the redemption value of a firstling donkey 13:1 , 13 . , foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach 18:3 . , the first shearing 18:4 . , oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits 26:1–11 . . Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits 2:1 . . Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt. “He who buys from a baker in Syria even in Temple times is only rabbinic in character and the vulgar will not give ḥallah . has to separate ḥallah as demay , the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate ḥallah as demay . whose obligation starts in the house of the Jew follows exactly the laws of the Land. ” 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 ḥallah in Syria. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you said that there are two ḥallot in Syria, should there not be two heaves in Syria? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, there comes nothing after ḥallah makes dough and bread totally profane. but after heave there comes something. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates were ṭevel for tithes! Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria 1:3 which restricts demay to the Land of Israel. One may assume that in his time the center of Jewish population had moved from Galilee to Syria. but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah is legitimate only if the dough was made from tithed flour. ! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There 1, Note 172 , explaining the statement of the Mishnah that ḥallah of a vulgar is exempt from the laws of demay . , 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. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah ! “ ki-Fshutah , p.799. He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay . ; from a private person and if he is a guest 8:15). Hilkhot Tašbeẓ explains: “If one buys from a private person one has to give extra ḥallah except if one is his guest or saw him knead for another person.” he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay .” 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. . It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay ; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay 6:11. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah in Syria. ? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land 1:3 deals only with the Land where all vulgars can be trusted to give ḥallah as they give Great Heave. , there outside the Land. 6:1, Notes 90–95 . 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, 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 ( Num . 34:6 ): “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? ( Cant . 4:8 ) “Sing from the top of Amanah”. 55a . 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. 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: ( Deut . 3:17 ) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: ( Jos . 18:20 ): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. 8:4 , Baba Qama 10:23, Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 22a . 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. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it 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, removals 9:2. , and animal tithe 55a . . 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 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 ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7 . . “The one for the Cohen has no measure,” for it is rabbinical to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah. . Should he give for the fire and not for the Cohen? That they should not say, we saw pure heave being burned shows that the obligation is only rabbinical and it is impure only by rabbinical standards. . Should he give for the Cohen and not for the fire? That they should not say, we saw impure heave being eaten. Since he gives both of them, when he comes here are required mainly to make sure that immigrants to the Holy Land inquire about the rules to be followed in the Land. , he will ask. But both are rabbinical of Syria outside the Promised Land. Since both ḥallot are rabbinical, why is one subject to a minimum amount but not the other. ! It is better to increase the one to be eaten, not the one to be burned. Even Rebbi Yose 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 ḥallah . agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone’s body. Rebbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra that it needs a plurality from territories never possessed by the tribes of Israel or the returnees from Babylonia, if mixed with profane food, does not create dema‘ if the profane is more than the ḥallah. This is accepted by the Babli for all heave of the Diaspora ( Bekhorot 21a ). Bostra is a town in Syria just outside the domain settled by the returnees from Babylonia; cf. Demay 2, Note 8 . . Rebbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101, subject of Mishnah 9, does not follow the rules of heave explained in Terumot 9. He is not specific about the amounts needed to annul the rabbinic ḥallah. . Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: “It may be eaten at one table with a layman never creates dema‘ since mixing the ḥallah with profane food cannot usually be avoided if both are on the same table. 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”. ”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. rabba 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. . Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates and declare the remainder as ḥallah or heave. This is quoted in the name of Samuel, as practice, by the Babli ( Beẓah 9a , Bekhorot 27a ). . 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, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical. It was stated 67a ) reads: Concerning a Gentile’s ḥallah in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that he is not obligated, the ḥallah may be eaten by outsiders and the heave does not create dema‘ . 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. : “Concerning a Gentile’s ḥallah in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that it is unnecessary, he might eat it, and it may be given to any Cohen, be he Fellow or vulgar.” Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem -dedications 18:14 . According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [ Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq 12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a , Arakhin 28a ]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion ( Arakhin 29a ). are for the people of the watch? He said to him: ( Lev. 27:21 ) “Like the ḥērem -dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen 88a , Arakhin 28a . .” 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 ḥērem -dedications are for the people of the watch?) But is it not written: ( Deut. 18:3 ) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch 18:3 clearly speaks about profane slaughter, away from the Temple, the meaning of the word must include any Cohen. The Babli ( Arakhin 28b ) 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: ( Num. 5:6 ) “The money must be returned to the Eternal for the Cohen”. The latter money is distributed among the people of the current watch. ? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ( Lev . 27:28 ) “Every ḥērem -dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem- dedications are for the people of the watch! If this is the case, also movables27:28 cannot be true because ḥerem- dedicated movables may be given to any Cohen but are also called “most holy” in the verse. ? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables-dedications. ? 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: ( Deut. 18:1 ) “The gifts to the Eternal and His inheritance they shall eat.” Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance. 2:7–9 , Babli Baba Qama 110b , Ḥulin 132b , Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1). 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 6:19 . , reparation offering 7:7 . , public well-being offerings 23:19 . 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. , purification offering of a bird, the reparation offering for suspected guilt5:17–18 . , the log of oil of the skin-diseased 14:10 , 21 . The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen. , the two breads 23:17 . , the shew-bread 24:9 . , the remainders of cereal offerings. 2:3 , 6:9–11 . , and the ‘omer . 23:10–11 . . These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings, First Fruits 3:10 . , what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram 7:34 , Num. 18:11 . , and the skins of sacrifices 7:8 . . These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach 18:3 . , the first shearing 18:4 . , robbery of the proselyte 5:8 . It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion. , redemption of the firstborn 13 . , redemption of the firstborn donkey 13 . , ḥērem -dedications, and fields of inheritance 27:16–21 . . “Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits.” Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since 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. “Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Aqiba follows his own opinion since “Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity” 2:4. . 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. Why did they not decree about vicia 5, Note 136 )? ? On their shoes it came out with them from Alexandria. When did they decree about black vetch cf. H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 458b. ? Rebbi Yose says, in a famine; Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi: In David’s time. They said, both are the same.

נִתַּיי אִישׁ תְּקוֹעַ הֵבִיא חַלּוֹת מִבַּיְיתוּר וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אַנְשֵׁי אֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה הֵבִיאוּ חַלּוֹתֵיהֶן מֵאֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ מֵהֶן. אַנְשֵׁי הַר צְבוֹעִים הֵבִיאוּ בִּיכּוּרֵיהֶם קוֹדֶם לָעֲצֶרֶת וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ מֵהֶן. מִפְּנֵי הַכָּתוּב שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה וְחַג הַקָּצִיר בִּיכּוּרֵי מַעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה. בֶּן אֲטִיטַס הֶעֱלָה בְּכוֹרוֹת מִבָּבֶל וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. יוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן הֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אַף הוּא הֶעֱלָה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח קָטָן בִּירוּשָׁלֵם וְהֶחֱזִירוּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְבַּע הַדָּבָר לְדוֹרוֹת. אֲרִסְטוֹן הֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו מֵאַפָּמֵיָא וְקִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַקּוֹנֶה בְסוּרִיָּא כְקוֹנֶה בְּפַרְוָור יְרוּשָׁלֵם. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱזִירוּם לִמְקוֹמָן. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אֵיפשַׁר לְאוֹכְלָהּ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ רָאִינוּ תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת. לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִין רָאִינוּ תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה נִשְׂרֶפֶת. לְהַחֲזִירָהּ לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִים רָאִינוּ תְרוּמָה יוֹצֵא מִן הָאָרֶץ לְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ. הָא כֵיצַד מַנִּיחָהּ עַד עֶרֶב פֶּסַח וְשׂוֹרְפָהּ. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן כַּהֲנָא שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה בְּעַכּוֹ שֶׁאָמַר זֶה הוּבָא מִקִּילִיקִיָּה וְגָזְרוּ עָלָיו וּשְׁתָייוֹ בִּסְפִינָה. וְאֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם טוֹעִין לוֹמַר שֶׁמְּבִיאִין תְּרוּמָה מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ. נֹאמַר לֹא יָרַד לְעַכּוֹ אֵיכָן שְׁתָייוֹ מִן הַחוּט וּלְחוּץ מִן הַחוּט וְלִפְנִים נֹאמַר מִן הַחוּט וּלְחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר מִן הַחוּט וְלִפְנִים לֹא חָשׁוּ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן בִּסְפִינָּה. אֵימָתַי הָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן כַּהֲנָא בִּימֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כַּהֲנָא הֲוָה מְסַמֵּךְ לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר עָבְרוּן עַל חַד סְיָיג. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַיְיתִי חַד קִיסֵּם נֵיחֲצִי שִׁינָּיי. חָזַר וְאָמַר לֹא תֵּיתִי לִי כְּלוּם אָמַר דְּאִין אָתֵי כָּל בַּר נַשׁ וּבַר נַשׁ מֵיעֲבַד כֵּן הֲוָה אָזִיל סְיָיגָה דְּגוּבְרָה. רִבִּי חַגַּיי הֲוָה מְסַמֵּךְ לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא עָבַר חַד טָעִין חַד מוֹבָל דְּקִיסִּין. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַיְיתִי לִי חַד קִיסֵּם נֵיחֲצִי שִׁינָּיי. חָזַר וְאָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא תֵּיתִי לִי כְּלוּם דְּאִין אָתֵי כָּל בַּר נַשׁ וּבַר נַשׁ מֵתְעֲבַד כֵּן הָא אָזְלָא מוֹבְלָה דְּגַבְרָא. רִבִּי זְעִירָה כָשֵׁר כָּל כָּךְ. אֶלָּא מִילִּין דְּיָצְרָן שָׁמַע לָן נָעַבְדִּינָן. אַנְשֵׁי אֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה הֵבִיאוּ חַלּוֹתֵיהֶן מֵאֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיאָה וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ מֵהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא מָרִי וְלֹא רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָא הִיא עוֹד הוּא אִית לֵיהּ וְגָזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱזִירוּם. אַנְשֵׁי הַר צְבוֹעִים הֵבִיאוּ בִּיכּוּרֵיהֶם קוֹדֶם לָעֲצֶרֶת וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ מֵהֶן. תַּנִּינָן תַּמָּן אֵין מְבִיאִין בִּכּוּרִים מַשְׁקִין. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אֵין עוֹשִין בִּכּוּרִים מַשְׁקִין אֲפִילוּ מִשֶׁזָּכוּ בָהֶן בְּעָלִים. וְהָתַנֵּי דָּרַךְ בִּיכּוּרִים מַשְׁקֶה לַהֲבִיאָן מְנַיִין שֶׁיָּבִיא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תָּבִיא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁלְּקָטָן מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל מְנָת כֵּן. וְכָאן לֹא לְקָטָן מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַל מְנָת כֵּן. וְאַתְיָיא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר פִּסְחָן שֶׁל נָשִׂים רְשׁוּת. תַּנֵּי הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה פֶסַח הָרִאשוֹן לְעַצְמָהּ וְהַשֵּׁינִי טְפֵילָה לָאֲחֵרִים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה פֶסַח שֵׁינִי לְעַצְמָהּ אֲפִילוּ בְשַׁבָּת וְאֵין צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה פֶסַח רִאשוֹן טְפֵילָה לָאֲחֵרִים וְאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה פֶּסַח שֵׁינִי. מַה טַעֲמָה דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבוֹת. אִם רָצ[וּ] שֶׂה לַבָּיִת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבוֹת כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לַבָּיִת. מַה טַעֲמָה דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אִישׁ וְלֹא אִשָּׁה. מַה מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנִין אִישׁ. פְּרָט לְקָטָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וַאֲפִילוּ לְמָאן דְּאָמַר חוֹבָה שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהַדָּבָר מְסוּיָים שֶׁמָּא יִקָּבַע הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה. לֹא כֵן סָבְרִנָן מֵימַר קוֹדֶם לִשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לֹא יָבִיא וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהַדָּבָר מְסוּיָים שֶׁמָּא יִקָּבַע הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנִּינָן אִם בָּאוּ תְמִימִין יִקְרָבוּ. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהַדָּבָר מְסוּיָים שֶׁמָּא יִקָּבַע הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה. אֲרִיסְטוֹן הֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו מֵאַפָּמֵיָא וְקִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵין מְבִיאִין תְּרוּמָה מֵחוּץ לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ. וְיָבוֹאוּ בִּיכּוּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בִּיכּוּרִים בַּאֲחֵרַיּוּת הַבְּעָלִים. תְּרוּמָה אֵינָה בַּאֲחֵרַיּוּת הַבְּעָלִים. אִם אָמַר אַתְּ כֵּן אַף הֵן מְרַדְּפִין לְאַחֲרֶיהָ לְשָׁם.

MISHNAH: Nittai from Tekoa brought ḥallot from Baithur but they did not accept from him. The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them 11:34 , 1S. 13:18 ), West of Jerusalem. . The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: ( Ex. 23:16 ) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331). , the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.” Ben-Atitas 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331). brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them on Deut . 14:23 (#106); Babli Bekhorot 53a ]. . Joseph the Cohen 10:1 and several baraitot in the Babli. brought his First Fruits as wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household 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. 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 6:11. . HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya which was rejected by the authorities advising the Cohanim. 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 is impure as foreign produce, it did not become impure in the Land and people will not know that it was imported. 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. and burns it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I saw Simeon ben Cahana drinking heave wine in Acco 6:1, Note 30 ). . When he said, this was brought from Cilicia, they decided about him and he drank it on a ship. Would not people say that one imports heave from outside into the Land? Let us say, he did not go into Acco. Where did he drink it? Outside the string or inside? Let us say, outside the string. 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. 3:2, Notes 52–56 . 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. 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 ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, is that not also from Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder? He holds that they decided about these and ordered them to be returned. “The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” There 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. , 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 ( Ex . 23:19 , 34:26 ), ‘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. Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary for his entire family. The same discussion in Pesaḥim 8:1 (fol. 35d), Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c); cf. Babli Pesaḥim 93a , Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba 3, Mekhilta R. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 10. ? It was stated 8:10 . There, the opinion of R. Meïr is attributed to R. Jehudah. : “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? ( Ex . 12:3 ) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “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. 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 93a quotes a Tosephta which includes women impure because of childbirth in the list of persons obligated to observe the Second Pesaḥ . . Did we not hold 10:6 , Babli Menaḥot 69a , 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. : “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 3:5 . Why should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to bring his firstlings? : “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 6:6. The discussion is there, Note 152 . , 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.