## Jerusalem Talmud Challah Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** פֵּירוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ חַיָיבִין בְּחַלָּה. יָצְאוּ מִכָּאן לְשָׁם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵיב וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פּוֹטֵר. עָפָר חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הַבָּא בִסְפִינָה לָאָרֶץ חַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת וּבִשְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַסְּפִינָה גוֹשֶׁשֶׁת. עִיסָּה שֶׁנִּילוֹשָׁה בְּמֵי פֵירוֹת חַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאֲבוֹת. הָאִשָּׁה יוֹשֶׁבֶת וְקוֹצָה חַלָּתָהּ עֲרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לְכַסּוֹת עַצְמָהּ אֲבָל לֹא הָאִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Foreign produce imported into the Land is obligated for *ḥallah*. If it was exported, Rebbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rebbi Aqiba declares it free. [Growth of] earth from outside the Land which came to the Land in a ship is under the obligation of tithes and Sabbatical. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches the ground. Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to hallah which can be eaten with unclean hands¹⁵ 2, Notes 136-137.) Therefore, *hallah* from such a dough cannot become impure and may be eaten by a pure Cohen without washing of his hands (cf. *Berakhot* 8, Note 46). A woman may sit down naked and separate her *hallah*¹⁵ 8:2, Note 60. because she can cover herself, but a man may not.

footnotes:
¹⁵ Pure fruit juice, without addition of water, does not make food susceptible to impurity (cf. Demay
¹⁵ And pronounce the benediction needed; cf. Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** פֵּירוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כול׳. כְּתִיב אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה. שָׁמָּה אַתֶּם חַיָיבִין. אֵין אַתֶּם חַיָיבִין חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. תַּנֵּי זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה פֵּירוֹת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְחַיֵיב. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֶחֶם הָאָרֶץ. לֹא לֶחֶם חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. מָה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה. שָׁמָּה אַתֶּם חַיָיבִין בֵּין בְּפֵירוֹת הָאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּפֵירוֹת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Foreign produce,” etc. It is written (*Num*. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you.¹” There you are obligated, you are not obligated outside the Land. It was stated: These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah². 110. In *Ma‘serot* 5:4 (Note 83), R. Jehudah’s interpretation of the position of R. Aqiba is presented as genuine. are: Foreign produce imported into the Land, Rebbi Eliezer declares it free but Rebbi Aqiba declares it obligated. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (*Num*. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread,” not foreign bread. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? (*Num*. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you.” There you are obligated, both for produce of the Land and foreign produce.”

footnotes:
¹ “When you come into the Land into which I am bringing you, (v. 18) it shall be that on the occasion of your eating from the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.”
² Who is a better authority than R. Meïr. The same statement in Sifry Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:3)

מָה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֵין אַתְּ מוֹדֵי לִי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ וּמָצְאוּ קְמָחִין וּסְלָתוֹת שֶׁהֵן חַיָיבִין בְּחַלָּה. וְלָאו גִּידּוּלֵי פְטוֹר הֵן וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּמִיהָנִי אֵיךְ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מוֹתִיב אֶת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינֵּיהּ. תַּמָּן עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסוּ לָהּ לְמַפְרֵיעָה יָרְשׁוּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן לְזַרְעֲךָ אֵתֶּן אֶין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא לְזַרְעֲךָ נָתַתִּי כְּבָר נָתַתִּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the reason of Rebbi Aqiba, (*Num*. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you?” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer: Do you not agree that when Israel entered the Land and found there coarse and fine flour³ that this was subject to *ḥallah*? Did it not grow while exempt? He accepted that⁴. Rebbi Yose said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer and how could the latter accept it? There, before they entered they had inherited it retroactively, as Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: It is not written “to your posterity I shall give” but (*Gen*. 15:18): “to your posterity I gave”, I already gave it.

footnotes:
³ R. Simson and R. Solomon ben Adrat read: “(coarse) flour and doughs”. This is from a textual tradition different from our mss.; it is very likely a late change since (a) in talmudic Hebrew, קמח means only “coarse flour”; the re-emergence of the biblical meaning “flour” (irrespective of quality) is definitely Medieval rabbinic; (b) only R. Aqiba (later in this Halakhah and in Mishnah 3:5) moves the obligation of ḥallah from kneading the dough to baking it. It is unreasonable to expect R. Eliezer to accept this position.
⁴ As seen later, without giving up his interpretation of the verses for current practice.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:4)

מָה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לֶחֶם הָאָרֶץ. בִּסְפִינָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לָאָרֶץ. אִם קִירְמוּ פָנֶיהָ מִן הַחוּט וְלִפְנִים חַיֶיבֶת. מִן הַחוּט וְלַחוּץ פְּטוּרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֵקִיבָה הִיא סְפִינְתָא הִיא עִיסַּת הַגּוֹי הִיא הַכְנָסָתָן שֶׁהַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר קְרִימָה בַתַּנּוּר. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּהַכְנָסָתָן לָאָרֶץ שֶׁהַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר קְרִימָה בַּתַּנּוּר. מִן מָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מָתִיב לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינֵּיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How does Rebbi Aqiba explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, (*Num*. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread?” About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line⁵ 6:2, Notes 92–94; *Ḥallah* 4:8. For the role of baking in determining the obligation cf. Halakhah 3:5. it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough⁶, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by what Rebbi Aqiba objected to Rebbi Eliezer and the latter accepted it.

footnotes:
⁵ The imaginary line drawn from the Northernmost point on the coast of the Biblical Land of Israel to the Southernmost, which defines the territorial waters of the Land according to the majority opinion; cf. Ševi‘it
⁶ Which is exempt if baked by a Gentile, obligated if baked by a Jew.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:5)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ וּמָצָא קָמָה לֵחָה מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה לֹא. עַד כְּדוֹן לֵחָה אֲפִילוּ יְבֵישָׁה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֲפִילוּ יְבֵישָׁה אֲפִילוּ קְצוּרָה. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִטִּין בָּעֲלִיָיה. כָּךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַצָּה בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִן דְּנַפְקוֹת תָּהִית דְּלֹא אָמְרָת לֵיהּ שַׁנְיָיה הִיא שֶׁמִּצְוַות עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוַות לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה דּוּ אָמַר מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דּוּ אָמַר אֵין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוַה בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה כְתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ מַה שֶׁיִהְיוּ תַגָּרֵי גּוֹיִם מוֹכְרִין לָהֶ[ם] וּכְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר כָּל בִּיאוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בַתּוֹרָה לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֶה שָׁנָה נֶאֶמְרוּ שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ. הָתִיב רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְהָכְתִיב וַיֹּאכְלוּ מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח. לֹא בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. הָתִיב רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהָכְתִיב מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח יָצְאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיַד רָמָה לְעֵינַי כָל מִצְרַיִם. לֹא בַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new⁷, cf. Chapter 1, Notes 3–5.? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten *maẓẓot* in the Passover nights⁸ on the 14th (*Jos*. 5:10); how could they have fulfilled the commandment to eat the meat “with *maẓẓot* and bitter herbs” when all grain was forbidden as new since the preceding year there could not have been any ‘*omer* and, according to the argument of the preceding paragraph, the laws were applicable retroactively?! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition⁹ 3b/4a).. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it¹⁰ *Ṭov* 1:3 (fol. 60b, bottom) and commented upon by *Or Zarua*‘ vol. 2, #234. The position of R. Yose is not mentioned in the Babli. As *Tosaphot* note in *Qiddušin* 38a (an opinion attributed by *Or* *Zarua*‘ to R. Jacob ben Meїr of Provins), the argument of R. Jonah is weak since even according to him, only the first bite of *maẓẓah* would be permitted as a positive commandment; all further consumption of new bread would have been sinful.? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming”¹¹ to the Land.” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution¹² 6, Note 10. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in Babli *Qiddušin* 37a–38a; it is quoted in Yerushalmi ‘*Orlah* 1:2 (fol. 60d), *Soṭah* 7:4 (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c).. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (*Jos*. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the *Pesaḥ*,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (*Num*. 33:3): “The day after the *Pesaḥ*, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth¹³ in Biblical texts is only the sacrifice of the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. Only in rabbinic texts does *Pesaḥ* stand for the holiday of unleavened bread, usually called Passover, starting on the 15th. The objection of R. Abun bar Cahana is anachronistic.?

footnotes:
⁷ Before the ‘omer
⁸ But they observed Pesaḥ
⁹ This is the position accepted everywhere in the Babli where, however, the principle is severely restricted (Yebamot
¹⁰ The disagreement between Rebbis Jonah and Yose is also discussed Yom
¹¹ Any commandment introduced with the remark: “When you come
¹² Cf. Ševi‘it
¹³ Pesaḥ


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:6)

יָצְאוּ מִכָּאן לְשָׁם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵיב וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פּוֹטֵר. אָמְרוּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִן אַתְרֵהּ וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִן אַתְרֵהּ. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִן אַתְרֵיהּ מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לֶחֶם הָאָרֶץ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִן אַתְרֵיהּ מָה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה. שָׁמָּה אַתֶּם חַיָיבִין. וְאֵין אַתֶּם חַיָיבִין חוּץ לָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If it was exported¹⁴, Rebbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rebbi Aqiba declares it free.” They said, Rebbi Eliezer [is explained] from his quote, Rebbi Aqiba from his quote. Rebbi Eliezer from his quote; what is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (*Num*. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread,” wherever it may be. Rebbi Aqiba from his quote; What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? (*Num*. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you;” there you are obligated; you are not obligated outside the Land.

footnotes:
¹⁴ Outside the Land of Israel.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:7)

רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת. כָּל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּדְרֹךְ כַּף רַגְלֵיכֶם בּוֹ לָכֶם יִהְיֶה. אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט וּכְרִבִּי יוּדָה. מֵתִיבִין לְרִבִּי יוּדָה אִם בִּסְפָרֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָכְתִיב מֵהַמִּדְבָּר וְהַלְּבָנוֹן הַזֶּה וְעַד הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל נְהַר פְּרָת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים וְעַד הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יִהְיֶה גְּבוּלְכֶם. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לִסְפָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לִסְפָרֵי חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. מֵעַתָּה מַה שֶׁהָיָה דָוִד הוֹלֵךְ וּמְכַבֵּשׁ בַּאֲרָם נַהֲרַיִם וּבַאֲרָם צוֹבָה יְהוּ חַיָיבִין בְּחַלָּה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהָיָה דָּוִד מַנִּיחַ סְפָרֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְכַבֵּשׁ סְפָרֵי חוּץ לָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The disagreement: (*Deut*. 11:24) “Any place¹⁶. 1:3 which cannot be the verse quoted here. your foot will tread on shall be yours,” the general statement contains only the detail¹⁷, Introduction, 7) that a general statement followed immediately by a clarification means only what is intended in the clarification. Therefore, “Any place” means only the region described here in general terms and in detail in *Num*. 34:1–12; “river Euphrates” here can only mean the region of Dura Europos, nearest to the Mediterranean., and following Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸ 6, Note 93.. They object to Rebbi Jehudah: If this is about the boundaries of the Land of Israel, is there not written: (*Jos*. 1:4) “From the prairie and this Lebanon up to the great river, the Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites¹⁹ and to the great ocean at sunset shall be your borders.” If it²⁰ cannot deal with the border regions of the Land of Israel, consider it for the border regions outside the Land²¹. Then, what David was conquering in Aram of the rivers and Aram Ẓova should be subject to *ḥallah*! There is a difference, because David was neglecting the border regions of the Land of Israel and conquering the border regions outside the Land²². 34:1–12 never was part of David’s empire. Therefore, he was not authorized to conquer the regions East of the promised Land. The argument appears in greater detail in *Sifry* *Deut*. 51..

footnotes:
¹⁶ In the masoretic text: כל המקום. כל מקום is in the parallel Jos
¹⁷ The full verse reads: Any place your foot will tread on shall be yours, from the prairie and the Lebanon, from the river Euphrates to the Western Sea shall be your border region. It is a hermeneutic principle (Sifra
¹⁸ Who defines the Western Sea as the Atlantic Ocean (at the Straits of Gibraltar) rather than the Mediterranean; cf. Ševi‘it
¹⁹ The Hittite settlement in the region after the disappearance of the Hittite empire in central Anatolia.
²⁰ The general statement “any place”.
²¹ That, if conquered, would become part of the Land of Israel.
²² The Northern part of the Land, the region of Phoenicia, as described in Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:8)

הֲווֹ בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָה דְאָמַר תַּמָּן חַיָיב אוֹף הָכָא חַיָיב. מָה דְאָמַר תַּמָּן פָּטוּר אוֹף הָכָא פָטוּר. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן פָּטוּר הָכָא חַיָיב. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נִתְחַיְיבוּ. כְּתִיב הוּא הֵשִׁיב אֶת גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִלְּבוֹא חֲמָת עַד יָם הָעֲרָבָה כִּדְבַר יי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ יוֹנָה בֶּן אֲמִתַּי הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר מִגַּת הַחֵפֶר. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי מָנָא חַד אָמַר כָּל מָה שֶׁכִּיבֵּשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּיבֵּשׁ זֶה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר יוֹתֵר מִמָּה שֶׁכִּיבֵּשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּיבֵּשׁ זֶה. תַּנָּא רִבִּי סִידוֹר מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי מָנָא יָמִים קַלִּים עָשׂוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאוֹתָהּ הָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
They wanted to say, according to him²³ who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him²⁴ who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated²⁵. It is written (*2K*. 14:25): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat²⁶ to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor²⁷ stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land²⁸.

footnotes:
²³ Rebbi Ḥananiah (?, probably Ḥaninah), who later in the paragraph holds that all the land conquered by Jeroboam II has the status of land conquered by Joshua.
²⁴ Rebbi Mana I, later in this paragraph.
²⁵ Even R. Mana will agree that under Joshua, the Land became obligated immediately upon being taken.
²⁶ Lebweh in the Beqaa valley in Lebanon, the Northernmost city in Solomon’s kingdom.
²⁷ An early Galilean Amora, perhaps called Isidor, possibly a student of Jehudah, the son of the elder R. Ḥiyya.
²⁸ Which, therefore, did not acquire the status of “Land of Israel.” Since R. Mana is identified as “the other”, R. Ḥananiah (Ḥaninah) must be the author of the first opinion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:9)

עָפָר חוּץ לָאָרֶץ שֶׁבָּא לְסוּרִיָּא נַעֲשֶׂה כְסוּרִיָּא. יָצָא מִשָּׁם לְכָאן נִתְחַיֵיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Earth from outside the Land which came into Syria²⁹ 7, Note 119. Since most agricultural rules of the Land held in Syria by rabbinic decree, Syria is not “outside the Land.” But it is not part of the Land either. becomes like Syria. Coming from there to here it becomes obligated.

footnotes:
²⁹ The land temporarily conquered by David outside the biblical borders; cf. Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:10)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַסְּפִינָה גוֹשֶׁשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי רִבִּי יוּדָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹטֵר בְּמַיִם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלֹא מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ. לֹא הָיְתָה אֶת הַסְּפִינָה גוֹשֶׁשֶׁת כְּמִי שֶׁהַסְּפִינָה גוֹשֶׁשֶׁת. לֹא הָיְתָה סְפִינָה גוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מַעְשְׂרוֹתֶיהָ מֵהֲלָכָה תּוֹרְמִין מִמֶּנָּה עַל עָצִיץ שֶׁאֵין נָקוּב וּמֵעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵין נָקוּב עָלֶיהָ. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי עָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו מֵהֲלָכָה וּתְרוּמָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמָּעַת וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר הַקּוֹנֶה עָצִיץ נָקוּב בְּסוּרִיָּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה עָפָר שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו וְקַרְקַע שֶׁעַל גַּבָּיו קָנָה לְחַיְיבוֹ לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת וְלַשְּׁבִיעִית אֲפִילוּ נָתוּן עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּי יְתֵידוֹת. אַף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֵי בָהּ. מָה בֵינוֹ לְבֵין הַסְּפִינָה. סְפִינָה עוֹלָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת וְזֶה בִמְקוֹמוֹ הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion³⁰ 81a–82b, *Sanhedrin* 24b). This is not the position of the Yerushalmi; cf. *Ševi‘it* 7, Note 90. since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water³¹ 5:4: “If somebody borrows vessels before the holiday, they follow the feet of the borrower, on the holiday, the feet of the lender. Similarly, if a woman borrowed from another spices, water, or salt, they follow the feet of both of them. Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, for water has no consistency.” If both the borrower and the lender made an *eruv* (cf. *Peah* 8, Note 56), the borrowed things can only be moved inside the territory accessible to both of them. R. Jehudah exempts water since it is permitted on a holiday to drink water from a brook; that water was outside the permitted domain when the holiday started., as it has no consistency³². Rebbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground³³? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated³⁴ 7:6, Note 84.: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice³⁵, its heave does not create *dema‘* and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case³⁶ and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.

footnotes:
³⁰ In the Babli it is held that if R. Jehudah asks in the Mishnah, when is this?, he does not disagree with the anonymous Tanna but explains the latter’s position (Eruvin
³¹ Mishnah Beẓah
³² In this interpretation, the water is disregarded and the wooden ship is considered as lying on the gound.
³³ According to R. Ḥaggai, the condition that the boat touch ground seems unintelligible.
³⁴ Kilaim
³⁵ Without any biblical basis. The flower pot is of clay which may be impermeable. Plants growing in a flower pot are considered growing on the ground only if the flower pot has a hole letting the earth in the pot absorb moisture from the ground. A wooden ship touching ground can always be said to be connected to the earth under it; it might only be compared to a flower pot with a hole.
³⁶ The flower pot with a hole permanently fixed on pegs above ground is obligated, the ship anchored but not touching ground is exempt.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:11)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ בִּירְתוֹתָא הִיא דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ בִּירְתוֹתָא אוֹמֵר מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פָּסַל אֶת כּוּלָּהּ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ לֹא פָסַל אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַגָּעוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר מָה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִילּוֹשָׁה שֶׁמֵּי פֵירוֹת מְחוּוָרִין לְהַכְשִׁיר. אֲבָל אִם נִילּוֹשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הוּכְשְׁרָה אֵין מֵי פֵירוֹת מְחוּוָרִין לְהַכְשִׁיר. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי עְקִיבָה אָמַר תַּמָּן אֵין מֵי פֵירוֹת מְחוּוָרִין לְטוּמְאָה מוֹדֵי הוּא הָכָא שֶׁמֵּי פֵירוֹת מְחוּוָרִין לַַחַלָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
³⁷: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota, as we have stated there³⁸ 3:6: “Dough which was prepared by fluids and kneaded with fruit juice, if a *ṭevul yom* touches it, Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota …” The Mishnah deals with heave in case the grain or the flour was prepared for impurity by contact with one of the fluids that activate impurity (cf. *Demay* 2, Notes 136–137). The *ṭevul* *yom* (cf. *Terumot* 5, Note 68) makes heave unusable by his touch; he has no influence on the purity status of profane food.: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota says in the name of Rebbi Joshua, he made everything unusable. But Rebbi Aqiba says in the latter’s name, he made unusable only the place where he touched.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when do they disagree? When it was prepared for impurity and after that was kneaded, when fruit juices clearly do prepare. But if it was kneaded and after that only prepared, fruit juices are not clear to prepare³⁹. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is everybody’s opinion. Even though Rebbi Aqiba says there that fruit juices have no clear connection with impurity, he agrees here that fruit juices are clearly for *ḥallah*⁴⁰, R. Aqiba holds that anything used as bread falls under the rules of bread..

footnotes:
³⁷ The Halakhah discusses the statement of the Mishnah: “Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to ḥallah which can be eaten with unclean hands”.
³⁸ Ṭevul Yom
³⁹ Fruit juice clearly does not prepare for impurity according to everybody. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, R. Eleazar ben Jehudah holds that fruit juice keeps the dough together and it becomes unusable if part of it is unusable. R. Aqiba holds that fruit juices cannot have any influence on the status of purity; one disregards the fact that the dough now forms a solid mass.
⁴⁰ For ḥallah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:12)

רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֵין לָךְ מְחוּוָר אֶלָּא שִׁבְעַת הַמַּשְׁקִין בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי מָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת לַחַלָּה לְטוּמְאָה. אִין תֵּימַר לַחַלָּה כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְטוּמְאָה. אִין תֵּימַר לְטוּמְאָה הָא לַחַלָּה לֹא. רִבִּי יוֹנָה פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לַחַלָּה כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְטוּמְאָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה תַּנֵּי דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי תַּנֵּי דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמַר כָּאן חַלָּה. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן חַלַּת לֶחֶם שֶׁמֶן. מָה חַלָּה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן עֲשׂוּיָה בְשֶׁמֶן. אַף חַלָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֲשׂוּיָה בְשֶׁמֶן. וְשֶׁמֶן אֶחָד מִשִּׁבְעַת הַמַּשְׁקִין הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Nothing is clear except the seven fluids⁴¹ 6:4: Dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, bee’s honey.. Rebbi Yose asked: Was this said for *ḥallah*⁴²? or for impurity? If you say for *ḥallah*, so much more for impurity. If you say for impurity, then not for *ḥallah*. It is obvious for Rebbi Jonah that it had been said for *ḥallah*, so much more for impurity. Rebbi Jonah sticks to his opinion, for Rebbi Jonah stated from Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi stated in Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s name, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon said, it is stated here⁴³. 15:20. *ḥallah*, and it is stated there⁴⁴. 8:26. About the theory of invariable meaning of words, cf. *Kilaim*8, Note 4., a *ḥallah* of oil cake. Since the *ḥallah* mentioned there is prepared with oil, so the *ḥallah* prepared here must be prepared with oil. And oil is one of the seven fluids.

footnotes:
⁴¹ The 7 fluids enumerated in Mishnah Makhširin
⁴² Does R. Joshua ben Levi disagree with the Mishnah and hold that only dough kneaded with one of the 7 fluids is subject to ḥallah
⁴³ Num
⁴⁴ Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:13)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שַׁבָּתַי רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לַחַלָּה וְלִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם אָדָם מְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבָעַת מִילִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה הֲדָא דַתֵימַר לְפָנָיו אֲבָל לַאֲחָרָיו אֵין מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁴⁵ 8:2; explained there in Notes 52–71. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For *ḥallah* and for washing one’s hands, he has to walk up to four *mil*. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:14)

שׁוֹמְרֵי גַּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּיסִין מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לוֹן כְּלִפְנֵיהֶן כִּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הֲדָא הָאִשָּׁה יוֹשֶׁבֶת וְקוֹצָה חַלָּתָהּ עֲרוּמָה. וַהֲדָא אִשָּׁה לֹא בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ יוֹשֶׁבֶת וְתֵימַר אֵין מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו. וְהָכָא אֵין מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them? Let us hear it from this (Mishnah *Ḥallah* 2:3): “A woman may sit down naked and separate her *ḥallah*” Is that woman not sitting inside her house and you say that one does not bother her? Also here, one does not bother him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:15)

תַּנִּי הַמַּיִם שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמָּזוֹן רְשׁוּת וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמָּזוֹן חוֹבָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּרִאשוֹנִים נוֹטֵל וּמַפְסִיק. וּבַשְּׁנִיִיִּם נוֹטֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. מַהוּ מַפְסִיק. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר נוֹטֵל וְשׁוֹנֶה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בָּעֵי נוֹטֵל וְשׁוֹנֶה וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ רְשׁוּת. אִין דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר אַרְבָּעַת מִילִין וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ רְשׁוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It has been stated: “Water before the meal is conditional, after the meal it is obligatory. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts; for the second he takes and may not interrupt.” What does he interrupt? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac asked: “He takes and interrupts” and you say it is conditional? One requires four *mil* and you say it is conditional?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:16)

אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נֶאֱכַל בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר. וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיִּים יָצְאָת אִשָּׁה מִבֵּיתָהּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגּוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ נְפָשׁוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said: Because of the first, pork was eaten. Because of the second, a woman had to leave her house; some say, three persons were killed because of it.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:17)

הָדָא אָמְרָה עֲגָבוֹת אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר לִבְרָכָה אֲבָל לְהַבִּיט אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בַּעֲקֵיבָהּ שֶׁלְּאִשָּׁה כְּמִסְתַּכֵּל בְּבֵית הָרֶחֶם. וְהַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּבֵית הָרֶחֶם כִּילּוּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר קוֹל בְּאִשָּׁה עֶרְוָה מַה טַעַם וְהָיָה מִקּוֹל זְנוּתָהּ וַתֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ וְגוֹ׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁵⁰ 24a. This means that buttocks are no sex organs. That is, for benedictions⁵¹ while naked. There is nowhere a prohibition for a woman to nurse her baby while others are present., but to look at them⁵² in any way is forbidden. As it was stated: He who looks at a woman’s heel is as if he looked at her genitals and he who looks at her genitals is as if he had intercourse with her. Samuel said, a woman’s voice is a sex organ. What is the reason⁵³. 2:14: “For your voice is sweet and your looks refreshing.” Neither of the verses prove what is required.? (*Jer*. 3:9) “From the sound of her whoring the land became polluted, etc.”

footnotes:
⁵⁰ Similar statements in Babli Berakhot
⁵¹ Benedictions and prayers may not be said in an indecent state. But since a woman may sit down flat on the ground with her legs tightly together, she may recite the benediction for ḥallah
⁵² Except one’s own wife.
⁵³ The Babli quotes here Cant


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:1:18)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר עוֹמֵד הוּא אָדָם עַל הַצּוֹאָה וּמִתְפַּלֵּל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְשָׂרוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּצּוֹאָה. יָשַׁב וְלֹא קִינַּח אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא מִילְתָא אָמַר דִּכְוָותָהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא אָמַר עוֹמֵד הוּא אָדָם עַל גַּבֵּי צוֹאָה וּמִתְפַּלֵּל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְשָׂרוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּצּוֹאָה. יָשַׁב וְלֹא קִינַּח הֲרֵי בְשָׂרוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַצּוֹאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray⁵⁴ (Babli 25a/b, Yerushalmi 3:5) it is stated that the *Šema‘* may not be recited within 4 cubits of any excrement. There are no separate rules there for prayer., on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down⁵⁵ and did not cleanse himself, it is forbidden. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent. As Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, his flesh touches the excrement.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ In Berakhot
⁵⁵ To defecate.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִיסָּתוֹ בְטָהֳרָה יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין וְאַל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטוּמְאָה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטוּמְאָה וְאַל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא קוֹרֵא לַטְּהוֹרָה כָּךְ הוּא קוֹרֵא לַטְּמֵיאָה. לְזוֹ קוֹרֵא חַלָּה בְשֵׁם וּלְזוֹ קוֹרֵא חַלָּה בְשֵׁם. אֲבָל קַבִּים אֵין לָהֶן חַלָּה בְשֵׁם. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּתוֹ קַבִּין וְנָגְעוּ זֶה בַזֶּה פְּטוּרִין מִן הַחַלָּה עַד שֶׁיִּשּׁוֹכוּ. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אַף הָרוֹדֶה וְנוֹתֵן לַסָּל הַסָּל מְצָרְפָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single *qabim* and not make it in impurity. Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single *qabim*⁴⁸. (The mss. of the Maimonides tradition, including the autograph ms., read קביים "*two qab*". This forces Maimonides to declare that the measures of *qab* mentioned in this Tractate are non-standard.)., since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single *qabim* have no named *hallah*⁴⁹.If somebody makes his dough single *qabim* and they are touching one another⁶¹, they are free from *ḥallah* unless they are biting⁶². Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together⁶³ of bread from one bake run, it is obligated for *ḥallah.*

footnotes:
⁴⁸ Each separate dough being made from less than the minimum amount subject to hallah
⁴⁹ The first Tanna would abolish any mention of hallah in impurity since he holds that it is sinful to cause food to be burned just for the formal observance of a commandment (Tosephta 1:9). In Halakhah 3:1, the Yerushalmi decides practice following R. Aqiba.
⁶¹ The different loaves touch one another in the oven.
⁶² The baked loaves cling to one another and cannot be cleanly separated.
⁶³ If the basket contains more than 5/4qab


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** מָה פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעַת מִיל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטָהֳרָה. אַרְבָּעַת מִיל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין. אִי אַרְבָּעַת מִיל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטָהֳרָה יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבָּעַת מִיל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר וָוא כְּגוֹן קַיְסָרִין. וְקַיְסָרִין לָאו אַרְבָּעַת מִילִין הִיא. הָדָא אָמְרָה אַרְבָּעַת מִיל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטָהֳרָה יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבָּעַת מִיל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין. רִבִּי אִמִּי הוֹרֵי בִּכְפַר שַׁמַּי לַעֲשׂוֹת עִיסָּה גְדוֹלָה בְטוּמְאָה. וַהֲלֹא אֵין שָׁם אַרְבָּעַת מִיל. מִכֵּיוָן דְּנַהֲרָא מַפְסִיק כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם אַרְבָּעַת מִיל. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְטוּמְאָה וְאַל יַעֲשֶׂנָּה קַבִּין. עִיסָּה גְדוֹלָה הָיְתָה נוֹחַ הָיָה לוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ כַּמָּה וְלֹא לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ קַבִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** How is this⁵⁶ one does not have to go more than four *mil* (about one hour) to immerse himself in a *miqweh* to remove one’s impurity.? Less that four *mil* he should make it in purity, four *mil* he sould make single *qabim*, or four *mil* he should make it in purity, more than four *mil* he sould make single *qabim*? Let us hear from the following, since Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, for example Caesarea⁵⁷ it might be four *mil*.. Is Caesarea not four *mil*? That means, four *mil* he should make it in purity, more than four *mil* he sould make single *qabim*. Rebbi Ammi instructed in Kefar Sammai⁵⁸, on the road from Sepphoris to Acco. Since this is reported as an actual instruction given in the third generation of Amoraїm, in the middle of the third Century, it follows that people were careful to remove any impurity on their bodies before making dough even if they could not remove the impurity caused by contact or closeness to the dead, in the absence of ashes of the red heifer. to make a large dough in impurity. Is that not less than four *mil*? Since a brook interrupts it is as if there were four *mil*. This teaching follows Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single *qabim*. It was a large dough and it would have been easier for him to walk a distance than to make it single *qabim*.⁵⁹

footnotes:
⁵⁶ This refers to the statement in Halakhah 3 (Note 44) that for ḥallah
⁵⁷ This is difficult to understand since Caesarea (Philippi) is on the Jordan. Probably it means that from the farthest outskirts of the city to the miqweh
⁵⁸ Also called Kefar Simai
⁵⁹ The instruction of R. Ammi does not prove that practice follows R. Aqiba.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:2:3)

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר נוֹטֵל מִקַּב חַלָּה וָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן לְשֶׁעָבַר בְּרַם הָכָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The arguments of Rebbi Aqiba are switched. There⁶⁰ from [a dough being only] one *qab*, R. Aqiba says it is *ḥallah*, but the Sages say it is not.” Here, he declares that a dough of one *qab* is exempt., he says one takes *ḥallah* from a *qab*, and here he says so? There after the fact, here before the fact.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ Mishnah 4:4: “If somebody took ḥallah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:2:4)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהֵן שֶׁנָּשְׁכוּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי הַסָּל מְצָרֵף וְאֵין הַתַּנּוּר מְצָרֵף. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי הַתַּנּוּר מְצָרֵף וְאֵין הַסָּל מְצָרֵף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִיתִיתֵיהּ מִדְּחִילְפַיי נָשְׁכוּ כָאן וְכָאן מְצָרֵף. לֹא נָשְׁכוּ כָאן וְכָאן אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין רִיפְתָּא דְּבָבֶל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁶⁸ 48b, this is the position of R. Joshua ben Levi explaining Mishnah 4.: Only if they were biting⁶². There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven⁶⁹., this may be the position of R. Eliezer and the other position that of R. Joshua., and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread⁷⁰ 48b that they are large and circular; they will always bite in the oven and have to be broken apart to be put into a bag..

footnotes:
⁶⁸ In the Babli, Pesaḥim
⁶² The baked loaves cling to one another and cannot be cleanly separated.
⁶⁹ In the Babli, loc. cit
⁷⁰ Rashi explains in Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַלָּתוֹ קֶמַח אֵינָהּ חַלָּה וְגֶזֶל בְּיַד כֹּהֵן. הָעִיסָּה עַצְמָהּ חַיֶיבֶת בַּחַלָּה. וְהַקֶּמַח אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר חַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה וַאֲסוּרָה לַזָּרִים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה וּקְפָשָׁהּ זָקֵן זָר אָמַר לָהֶן אַף הוּא קִלְקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ וְתִקֵּן לָאַחֵר. חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח חַיָיבִין בְּחַלָּה הֵן וְסוּבָּן וּמוּרְסְנָן חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים חַיָיבִין. נִיטָּל מוּרְסְנָן מִתּוֹכָן וְחָזַר לְתוֹכָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. שִׁיעוּר הַחַלָּה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה לְעַצְמוֹ וְהָעוֹשֶׂה לְמִשְׁתֶּה בְנוֹ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. נַתְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה לִמְכּוֹר לַשּׁוּק וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה. נִיטְמֵאת עִיסָּה שׁוֹגֶגֶת אוֹ אֲנוּסָה אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה נִטְמֵאת מֵזִידָה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא כֵּיצַד עִיסָּה טְהוֹרָה וְעִיסָּה טְמֵיאָה נוֹטֵל כְּדֵי חַלָּה מֵעִיסָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ וְנוֹתֵן פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה בְּאֶמְצַע כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody gives *ḥallah* from flour it is not *ḥallah* and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to *ḥallah*; the flour, if it is a full measure⁶⁴ measures more than 5/4 *qab*., is obligated for *ḥallah* and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed⁶⁵ it. He said to them, he destroyed himself⁶⁶ and put others in order⁶⁷.
Five quarters⁷¹ of coarse flour⁷² are obligated for *ḥallah*; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned⁷³, it is free.
The rate⁸², the amount to be taken is 1/24 by rabbinic decree. Since *ḥallah* is a heave, it has no lower limit in biblical law. The rabbinic amount is more than twice the rabbinic rate of heave which is one in 50. of *ḥallah* is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman⁸³ who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure⁸⁴ must be burned and there is no reason to give the Cohen a larger portion. Today, when all dough is impure, these rabbinic rules have been disestablished and biblical law reinstated. by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded.
Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure⁹⁵ 2:2.. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for *ḥallah* from dough from which *ḥallah* was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle⁹⁶ 5:1), the two doughs can be put in the same vessel to be earmarked for heave together (*Terumot* 2, Note 6). The Mishnah is quoted in Babli *Soṭah*30a/b; there a version is quoted which has “gives the volume of an egg”. The explanation is that the impure dough is impure in the first degree (cf. *Berakhot* Chapter 8, Note 46). It makes the dough in between impure in the second degree. The pure dough, while *ṭevel*, is under the rules of profane food for which no third degree exists. Therefore, the dough in the middle cannot transmit impurity to the pure dough irrespective of size. This is the position taken by Maimonides in his Code (*Bikkurim* 7:12). so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ The flour given as ḥallah
⁶⁵ קבש stands for כבש, showing that the ק had lost its guttural sound. He took and ate it without it being given to him to show that it had no holiness.
⁶⁶ He sinned.
⁶⁷ Others who follow his teaching will not sin since they would follow rabbinical instructions; their sins in this matter will all be charged to the rabbi who gave the wrong instructions.
⁷¹ The measure involved is discussed in the Halakhah.
⁷² The same holds for fine flour which never contains bran. It is stated here that milled grain is called “coarse flour” before being sifted.
⁷³ Usually the bran is sifted out before the flour is used for bread dough. Since normally bran is not returned, the rules for flour mixed with bran are like those for flour mixed with rice flour.
⁸² If a dough is subject to ḥallah
⁸³ In contrast to the baker she has no store but bakes at home to sell out of her basket on the market.
⁸⁴ In this case, the ḥallah
⁹⁵ This is forbidden for heave, Terumot
⁹⁶ Since food less in volume than an egg cannot transmit impurity (Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר לָהֶן אַף הוּא קִלְקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ וְתִקֵּן לָאֲחֵרִים. קִלְקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ דָּאֲכָלָהּ וְאִיתְעֲנָשׁ וְתִקֵּן לָאֲחֵרִים דְּאִינּוּן אָכְלִין וְתָלֵיי בֵּיהּ. אִית תַּנֵּי תַּנָּיֵי תִּיקֵּן לְעַצְמוֹ וְקִילְקֵל לָאֲחֵרִים. תִּיקֵּן לְעַצְמוֹ מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֲכָלָהּ. וְקִילְקֵל לָאֲחֵרִים דְּאִינּוּן סָבְרִין מֵימַר שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר וְהִיא חַיֶיבֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order.” He destroyed himself by eating and exposed himself to punishment; he put others in order since they eat and unload [their sin] on him. Some Tannaїm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since anyhow he ate. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:3)

רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי קַב טִיבֵּרָנִי חַיָיב בְּחַלָּה. חַד חֲלִיטָר שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵיזִיל עֲבִיד אַרְבַּע וּפְלִיג. וְיֹאמַר לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא וּפְלִיג. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קַבַּיָיא בְּאַתְרֵיהוֹן רוֹבְעַיָּא אִזְדָּרְעוּן וְיֹאמַר לֵיהּ חֲמִשָּׁה פָּרָא צִיבְחָד. שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי סָפֵק חִיּוּב חַלָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian *qab* is obligated for *ḥallah*⁷⁴ of the Mishnah. Mishnah *Idiut* 1:2 states that originally the amount was fixed at 1.5 *qab*. Tosephta *Idiut* 1:2 reads: “The Sages estimated 7 + something *qabim* which are 5 quarters in Sepphoris or 1.5 *qab* in Jerusalem.” According to Rashi (*Pesaḥim* 48b), Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (*Idiut* 1:2) the argument is the following: Since *Num*. 15:21–21 speaks about “the beginning of your doughs,” the reference is to the size of the doughs made in the desert, which was 1 ‘*omer* of manna. The ‘*omer* is defined in *Ex*. 16:36 as a tenth of an *ephah* which is 3 *seah* or 18 *qab*, 72 quarter qabim. This makes the ‘omer 7.2 biblical quarter *qabim*. The Jerusalem small measure is defined as 1/6 larger than the biblical, the Sepphoris 1/6 larger than the Jerusalem. This makes the *ephah* 60 Jerusalem quarters and 50 Sepphoris ones and the amount subject to *ḥallah* is 7.2 biblical quarters = 6 Jerusalem quarters = 5 Sepphoris quarters.
Maimonides defines the *qab*(Sepphoris) as 4×4×10.8 digits. The digit is 1/24 of a cubit normally taken to be 55 cm; this makes the *qab* 2101 cm³ = 2.1 liter and the amount of dry flour so that a dough made from it should be subject to *ḥallah* equal to 2.65 liter. A Jerusalem *qab* would then be 2.52 liter and it is possible that the Tiberian measure was equal to the Jerusalem one and R. Yannai’s statement errs on the side of caution, in the spirit of the last sentence of this paragraph.. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate⁷⁵ by biblical law, it is preferable to prepare the dough so the question of *ḥallah* should never arise.. Could he say to him, three and separate⁷⁶ or three *qabim* or maybe three quarters of a *qab*?? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, *qabim* in their places are measured by quarters⁷⁷ was never used as a commercial measure; the standard was the quarter of about 0.5 liter.. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of *ḥallah*.

footnotes:
⁷⁴ Which is larger than the standard qab
⁷⁵ Make batches of 4 quarters of dough and separate the batches so they will never touch. Since fried dough is not subject to ḥallah
⁷⁶ Why did he say “make four” without saying what he meant? Could it be four qabim
⁷⁷ In his place, the qab


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דֶּרֶךְ עִיסָּה שָׁנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא. דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם אֵינָהּ חַיֶיבֶת בַּחַלָּה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָהּ דָּגָן כְּשִׁיעוּר. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָא בַּר לוֹלִיתָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דִּבְרִי הַכֹּל הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי הָדָא מִילְתָא אָמַר דִּכְוָותָהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דֶּרֶךְ עִיסָּה שָׁנוּ. וְכָאן מִּכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיטָּל מוּרְסְנָן וְחָזַר לְתוֹכָן אֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ עִיסָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁸ Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made⁷⁹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said⁸⁰ unless it contain the full measure of grain. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, bran has the status of non-cereal. it is never subject to *ḥallah* unless it contain the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita⁸¹ in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. In this case, since the bran was removed and then put in again, it is not the way dough is made.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ This refers to the last sentence of the Mishnah.
⁷⁹ As noted at the end, mixing the bran in again was not usually done in talmudic times.
⁸⁰ Tosephta 2:1: If somebody makes dough from grain and rice, it is never subject to ḥallah
⁸¹ He is not otherwise mentioned.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:5)

תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. וִנַחְתּוֹם אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנַּחְתּוֹם עֵינוֹ יָפָה בְעִיסָּתוֹ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת רָעָה בְעִיסָּתוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא מִשֵּׁם (הוּא זֶה) וְלֹא מִטַּעַם זֶה. אֶלָּא וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יי לְאַהֲרוֹן הַכֹּהֵן עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיִינָתְנוּ לַכֹּהֵן בִּכְהוּנָתוֹ. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנַּחְתּוֹם עִיסָּתוֹ מְרוּבָּה וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עִיסָּתוֹ מְעוּטָה וְאֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁸⁶. 110 there is another version, based on *Num*. 15:21, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In *Sifry*, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows *ḥallah* to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, why did they say the private person one in 24 but the baker one in 48? Because the baker is generous⁸⁷ speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on *Sifry* to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the *ḥallah* which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with his dough but the private person is stingy⁸⁶. 110 there is another version, based on *Num*. 15:21, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In *Sifry*, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows *ḥallah* to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60. with his dough. But the Sages say, not because of this category or reason, but (*Num.* 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” they should be given to the priest in his status as priest⁸⁸ 5, Note 22.. The baker makes a large dough with enough to make a gift to the Cohen but the private person makes a small dough that would not be enough to make a gift to the Cohen⁸⁹ must be delivered immediately whereas heave of agricultural produce can be accumulated until it reaches the required amounts..

footnotes:
⁸⁶ A different text in Tosephta 1:7. In Sifry Num
⁸⁷ This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior
⁸⁶ A different text in Tosephta 1:7. In Sifry Num
⁸⁸ Compare Terumot
⁸⁹ The percentages given to the Cohen must be larger than the percentages fixed for heave since dough is perishable and ḥallah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:6)

וְהָתַנִּינָן הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה לְעַצְמוֹ וְהָעוֹשֶׂה לְמִשְׁתֶּה בְנוֹ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. שֶׁלֹּא תַחְלוֹק לְעִיסַּת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לְבֵיתָהּ עֵינָהּ רָעָה בְעִיסָּתָהּ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק עֵינָהּ יָפָה בְעִיסָּתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתְנִיתָא בְּלִימּוּדֶת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרֵשֶׁת אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנָה אֲבָל בְּלִימּוּדֶת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרֵשֶׁת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה נִיתְנֵי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַחוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But did we not state: “If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast⁹⁰, one in 24?” Not to make a distinction in doughs of a private person. But did we not state: “And also a woman⁹¹ who makes to sell on the market, one in 48?” When she makes it for herself, she is stingy⁸⁷ speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on *Sifry* to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the *ḥallah* which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with her dough; when she makes to sell on the market she is generous⁸⁷ speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on *Sifry* to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the *ḥallah* which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with her dough. Rebbi⁹² said, the Mishnah speaks about one⁹³ used to give one in 48, but about one who is used to give one in 24, we should state that “the sinner should not be rewarded⁹⁴”.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ Then he bakes a large quantity and the argument of the Sages does not apply.
⁹¹ She bakes at home and by the preceding argument should not change her rate of 1 in 24.
⁸⁷ This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior
⁸⁷ This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior
⁹² Probably of a name is missing.
⁹³ The woman selling bread on the market gets the barker’s rate only if she regularly bakes for the market. If she does it only occasionally, she is held to the rate of 1 in 24 in accordance with the explanation given for the infrequent wedding feast.
⁹⁴ If she works only occasionally for sale, she should not be invited to give less for her domestic bread.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:7)

וְאֵין הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַקְפִּיד עַל תַּעֲרוּבָתוֹ אֵין הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף וּשֶׁאֵין מַקְפִּיד עַל תַּעֲרוּבָתוֹ הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף. עִיסָּה טְמֵיאָה עִיסָּה טְהוֹרָה עָשׂוּ כְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מַקְפִּיד עַל תַּעֲרוּבָתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Does the house not combine them together⁹⁷? Things which one objects to being mixed the house will not combine together; if one would not object to their being mixed the house will combine them. The status of impure and pure dough is that one is assumed to object to their being mixed.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ Why does R. Eliezer need the expedient with food less than the volume of an egg? Could one not say that the house is a container which earmarks the two doughs together?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:8)

וְעִיסָּתָהּ חַלָּה. אֲבָל בְּעִיסָּה שְׁנִיָיה אֵין לַשֵּׁינִי מַגַּע אֶצֶל הַטֵּבֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If the dough is *ḥallah*⁹⁸. But a dough of secondary [impurity] has no [invalidating] touch for *ṭevel*⁹⁹ goes under the rules of profane food; cf. Note 96..

footnotes:
⁹⁸ R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti read: ועיסתה תחילה “if the dough is [impure in the] first degree.”
⁹⁹ A dough impure in the second degree which touches profane pure dough does not transmit impurity. This proves that ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Challah 2:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Challah/r/2:3:9)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לַעִאיי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא בְּלַח. כֵּיצַד כָּבַשׁ זֵיתִין בְּטוּמְאָה וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לְתוֹרְמָן בְּטָהֳרָה מֵבִיא מַשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁאֵין בְּפִיו כְּבֵיצָה וּמְמַלֵּא אוֹתוֹ זֵתִים וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל פִּי חָבִית. וְנִמְצָא תוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. לָמָּה לִי פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה. אֲפִילוּ כְבֵיצָה וְלֹא פֵּירוּרִין אִינּוּן. שֶׁלֹּא לְטַמְּאוֹת זֵיתִים הַרְבֶּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין לָךְ קָרוּי לַח אֶלָּא יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן בִּלְבַד. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא קוֹרָה אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי בּוֹרוֹת. שְׁתֵּי קוֹרוֹת לְבוֹר אֶחָד. [נִיחָא קוֹרָה אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי בּוֹרוֹת. אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי קוֹרוֹת לְבוֹר אֶחָד] מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ אֵין כּולּוֹ טָמֵא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא תִּיפְתַּר שֶׁהָיָה בְדַעְתּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן תְּפִיסָה אַחַת וְנִמְלַךְ וַעֲשָׂאָן שְׁתֵּי תְפִיסוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְּשֶׁשִּׁילֶּה וּמִשֶּׁקִּיפֶּהּ שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לְתוֹרְמָן בְּטָהֳרָה. אֲבָל אִם נִיטְמָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא קִיפֶּה וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא שִׁילֶּה לֹא בְדָא. רִבִּי טָבִי רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵיהּ וְלֹא הוֹרֵי אָמַר תַּרְתֵּיי כָּל קֳבֵל תְּרֵי אִינּוּן. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ וְהָא רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן מוֹדֵי. אֲפִילוּ כֵן לֹא הוֹרֵי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰⁰ It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called *fluid* are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?]¹⁰¹ and here in the Rome ms., missing in the Leyden ms. Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer¹⁰²: “Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” In view of the penultimate sentence, the formulation here is preferable.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi]¹⁰³ text; name missing here in both mss. and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ This paragraph is from Terumot 2:1 and explained there, Note 35-44.
¹⁰¹ This sentence is in Terumot
¹⁰² In Terumot
¹⁰³ From the Terumot