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 hallah¹⁵ 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

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

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.

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.

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

“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.

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

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.

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

“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.

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 ḥallah⁴⁰, 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

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 ḥallah⁴²? 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. Kilaim8, 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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 qabim⁴⁸. (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 hallah⁴⁹.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

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.

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

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

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 Soṭah30a/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

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.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah⁷⁴ 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

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.

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

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.

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?

If the dough is ḥallah⁹⁸. But a dough of secondary [impurity] has no [invalidating] touch for ṭevel⁹⁹ 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

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