MISHNAH: One may eat a snack¹. from the dough until it was rolled² if wheat dough or compacted³ if barley dough. After it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough, one who eats from it commits a deadly sin. After she added water she may lift its ḥallah⁴ starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving ḥallah legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. In Pesaḥim 3:3 (fol. 30a), R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give ḥallah from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing. on condition that there be five quarters of flour⁵ starts. The Maimonides autograph, a number of important Mishnah mss., and an Amora in the Halakhah read: on condition that there not be five quarters of flour, meaning that the flour which is still dry cannot be of the minimal volume which triggers an independent duty of ḥallah since in that case, the ḥallah taken would not free the dough made later from the dry flour. The early Medieval authors all report that there are two conflicting readings, both of which seem to be genuine..

footnotes: ¹ Without taking ḥallah ² After kneading it was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave. ³ Barley dough does not hold together well and after shaping it has to be squeezed together to close the holes. ⁴ While the obligation of ḥallah ⁵ This is the reading of the Yerushalmi mss., the Munich ms. of the Babli, and a number of good Mishnah mss. In this version, at least 5 quarters of flour have to be wetted before the possibility of giving ḥallah

HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal⁶ it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rebbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following⁷ what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra]⁸. Missing in the Leyden ms. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

footnotes: ⁶ Using the mixture of flour and water as a cereal for a sit-down meal. ⁷ The reference is to Ma‘serot 4:3, Notes 61 ff. where in a similar case it is stated that taking food not fully processed will never create an obligation of heave if the remainders can be returned to be processed further. ⁸ Reading of the Rome ms. and the text in Ma‘serot

But that⁹ make his dough in purity. This implies that if he is able to make the dough in purity he may not make it in small loaves. means, he who cannot process in purity, because he is unable. Therefore, if he is able this does not apply. This means that it is forbidden for a person to make his dough qab sized¹⁰.

footnotes: ⁹ This does not refer to the Mishnah here but to Mishnah 2:3 which is formulated: If somebody cannot ¹⁰ Unless the total volume of the flour used for all loaves is less than the minimum 5 quarters.

For all other things¹¹ one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, after what do you go, after rolling or after compacting? Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: ḥallah in a form¹², after it was rolled for wheat flour or compacted for barley flour. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, after if was well formed. Do they differ? One is for practice, the other for study matters¹³.

footnotes: ¹¹ All flour other than wheat and barley. ¹² This translation is tentative since גבלול appears only here. The meaning is guessed from rabbinic Hebrew גבל “to form into dough,” Arabic جبل “to form”. ¹³ Since none of the authors of religious codes quotes this paragraph, it is difficult to ascertain which opinion is the one that should guide practice.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings¹⁴. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like the heave of the threshing floor.” Since heave of the threshing floor is taken after the end of processing, so this also is taken after the end of processing. Then after it was baked? Rebbi Mattaniah: It is compared to heave only for doughmaking¹⁵ 15:20 defines ḥallah as “start of your doughs” and not “start of your breads”..

footnotes: ¹⁴ Tosephta 1:12, speaking of a convert who accepts Judaism while making a dough. ¹⁵ Since Num.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This¹⁶ can be taken as soon as the flour is moistened. R. Simeon ben Laqish must read with Maimonides that not 5 quarters are still dry. The Mishnah then does not imply that 5 quarters of flour are already moistened; one might object that then there is no obligation of ḥallah. is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there¹⁷: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah, but the Sages say it is no ḥallah.” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start¹⁸ which was taken against the rules, it does not mean he will accept that one may start with the intention of giving ḥallah as long as the dough does not contain five quarters.? Here we deal with the start. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹ from less than 5 quarters invalid cannot accept Mishnah 3:1 (in the Maimonides version.).

footnotes: ¹⁶ This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that legal ḥallah ¹⁷ Mishnah 4:4. ¹⁸ If R. Aqiba validates ḥallah ¹⁹ Mishnah 3:1 cannot be derived from 4:4 but the Sages who declare ḥallah

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated²⁰: ²¹5:15, quoted in Demay 7:9, Note 137.Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden²² in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion²³. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101²⁴ 4, Note 62..” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul²⁵ in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot²⁶ in purity for lay wives. implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it²⁷ is taken at the very first moment, when there still is some flour not moistened, the sour dough not thoroughly worked in, and some pieces being separated. Flatbread in Arabic is قُرص.. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it²⁸..” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis²⁹, one said in one case there is enough to lift³⁰, in the other case there is not enough to lift³¹; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place³².

footnotes: ²⁰ The Rome ms. reads תני instead of דתני. In that case, the Tosephta is not quoted by R. Joḥanan to bolster his case but by the editors in order to question his argument. Then one should read “… your doughs.” It was stated … ²¹ Tosephta Terumot ²² To laymen. ²³ Since heave of the tithe does not have to be earmarked, if the Levite has other tithe from which heave of the tithe was not yet taken, he can include the heave for the mixed tithe in the heave he gives from his other tithe and make the mixture profane. ²⁴ Heave cannot be removed unless declared as such, even if only implicitly by saying, for example: Heave shall be in the Northern part of the grain heap. “Lifting” a replacement of the impure heave was explained in Terumot ²⁵ An Amora of the second generation, living near Bet Shean. ²⁶ Wives or unmarried daughters of Cohanim. Since they had to watch over purity in their homes, they were called to take ḥallah ²⁷ From the text of the declaration it is clear that ḥallah ²⁸ If practice would follow R. Eleazar ben Arakh, the Cohenet should lift an amount corresponding to the impurity and then take pure ḥallah ²⁹ He said the same as R. Samuel from Cappadocia but did not mention the latter’s name. ³⁰ Then one follows R. Eleazar ben Arakh. ³¹ Then one formulates the declaration following the Cohanot. ³² One has to follow the Cohanot since in this case even R. Eleazar ben Arakh would not permit taking from the dough without their special declaration.

Rebbi Yose said, the statement is reasonable on Sabbath eves; since everybody is bringing, it is as if she separated from what is obligated for what is obligated. But on weekdays, while they instituted that ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated³³, it becomes ḥallah. But during the week, if the amount barely is obligated, the piece taken by the Cohenet is exempt because it is less than 5 quarters. Therefore, if all flour is kneaded and the obligation of ḥallah established, designating now that extra piece as ḥallah would be satisfying one’s obligation with exempt food and this is forbidden for all types of heave.? Rebbi Jonah said, it is only reasonable on weekdays, but on Sabbath eve she would have to say “all, including the impure.” Why? Since [some dough] is taken before all is one mass, when all is made into one mass the former is sanctified as ḥallah. If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah³⁴, that part remains ṭevel. Since it is impure and a small quantity, it makes the ḥallah dough forbidden for everybody, including the Cohen.. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt³⁵ for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, does it not become dedicated retroactively? Since it is dedicated retroactively, it is as if one gave from what is obligated for the obligated³⁶ at this moment. If the kneaded dough reaches critical mass, the ḥallah becomes dedicated retroactively; there is no ṭevel and no exempt dough remaining. Therefore, the declaration of the Cohenet is valid both on a regular weekday and on a Friday..

footnotes: ³³ Fridays every woman will bake more than the minimal amount. Therefore, at the moment the Cohenet takes the dough for ḥallah ³⁴ Since the declaration by the Cohenet excludes any impurity in the dough taken for ḥallah ³⁵ A part carefully made in purity by the Cohenet. R. Jonah must hold that the prohibition to give heave from exempt food is purely rabbinical and can be voided if there is no other way out. ³⁶ R. Samuel ben Eudaimon disagrees with the entire discussion, both by R. Yose and R. Jonah. Since at the moment of declaration nothing happens, all remains ṭevel

Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour?³⁷ can be given conditionally, the unmixed flour mentioned by the Cohanot should not be limited.” Rebbi³⁸ said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot.

footnotes: ³⁷ This is Maimonides’s reading in the Mishnah. Since we have decided that ḥallah ³⁸ Either a name has disappeared from both mss. or this is Rebbi’s reason to change the prior formulation of the Mishnah to the text transmitted in both Talmudim.

MISHNAH: If the dough became *dema‘*³⁹ 4, Note 27). before it was rolled² it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah.⁴⁰ If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity⁴¹, the possible impurity already exists while the entire dough is profane. There is no prohibition to cause impurity to profane food (Babli Niddah 6b). The ḥallah will be forbidden and has to be burned, as if it were certainly impure. but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity⁴² was created, the dough and its ḥallah were pure. If later ḥallah is taken, it is ḥallah which may be impure. It is forbidden to the Cohanim but it is also forbidden to directly make it impure (cf. Pesahim 1:7)..

footnotes: ³⁹ Heave fell in the dough and there is not enough profane dough to lift the heave. Then the entire dough may be eaten only by Cohanim (cf. Demay ² After kneading it was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave. ⁴⁰ Mishnah 1:4. ⁴¹ If the dough later becomes obligated for ḥallah ⁴² At the moment the obligation of ḥallah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food⁴³ 5, Note 19). It is stated that ṭevel, produce under the obligation of heave, cannot become impure in the third degree. and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave⁴⁴ may contain impurity in the second degree, it can no longer be a source of heave. Then the remainder of the profane food should be of third degree, i. e., pure and acceptable for heave.. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with⁴⁵ profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there⁴⁶ 4:1.: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom⁴⁷ 5, Note 68. A Ṭevul Yom, a formerly severely impure person after immersion in a miqweh but before sundown, is impure in the second degree by biblical standards. Unwashed hands of an otherwise pure person are impure in the second degree by post-biblical, rabbinic and Sadducee, standards. or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there⁴⁸: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said⁴⁹ Yom 4:1., he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state⁵⁰ is suspended {it cannot be eaten since it may be impure, and it cannot be burned since it may be pure.} What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for ḥallah {involving third degree impurity which is inactive for profane food.} Similarly, produce for which a doubt of impurity arose before it was fully processed {before any obligation of heave} should be processed in impurity but after it was fully processed it must be processed in purity; its heave is suspended. What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for heave.”: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt⁵¹? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that⁵². Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest⁵³, you may make it impure.

footnotes: ⁴³ The difference between profane food and heave in matters of ritual impurity is that profane food can be impure in the first and second degrees but heave also in the third (cf. Berakhot ⁴⁴ If there is a doubt that ṭevel ⁴⁵ Reading מנינו instead of ממנו; originally the left stroke of מ was very short. The Rome ms. has a shorter and better version: אִם פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִּין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה יְהֵא מִנְיָנוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. “If it invalidates profane food so that it cannot be made into heave, it should be counted as heave.” ⁴⁶ Mishnah Ṭevul Yom ⁴⁷ Cf. Terumot ⁴⁸ Here, in Mishnah 2. ⁴⁹ Mishnah 2:3. Rav Sheshet holds that the Mishnah here is R. Aqiba’s but not the Mishnah Ṭevul ⁵⁰ Tosephta 1:11: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity; its ḥallah ⁵¹ The amount is irrelevant for heave. Therefore, R. Zeïra’s argument is irrelevant. ⁵² He claims priority over R. Ḥiyya bar Abun. ⁵³ The priest is obligated to consume heave in purity. Since the heave in question may not be consumed, it is not destined for the priest.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. ⁵⁴ 4:5; the principle is explained there, Notes 76–81. Since Temple property is common and not individual property, the duties of ḥallah and heave, addressed to individuals, are not existing for the Temple. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ This second part of the Mishnah is also in Mishnah Peah

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁵ 4:5, Notes 82–96. And why is it stated twice? Rebbi Huna, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi⁵⁶ correctly: Bar Pedaiah. Pedaiah: One for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abba and the colleagues. The colleagues say, one for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Abba explains: At Ḥallah for smoothing, at Peah for one third.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ The entire Halakhah appears also in Peah ⁵⁶ In Peah

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said the additional growth is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it either for Rebbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

MISHNAH: A dough⁵⁷ which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure⁵⁸. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made⁶⁴ before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth⁶⁵ was misappropriated; cf. Mishnah Terumot6:1. because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Flour or dough not fully mixed. Property of the Non-Jew is not subject to Jewish ritual law. ⁵⁸ If the Jew contributed less than 5 quarters of flour. ⁶⁴ While he was undergoing the conversion ceremony, his servants made dough in his house. ⁶⁵ As penalty if the ḥallah ⁶⁶ The question is whether R. Aqiba disagrees with all preceding statements that designate rolling (of wheat dough, or compacting of barley dough) as final processing or he holds that only baking is final processing for the proselyte.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between this and a dough of annona? Is the latter not obligated for ḥallah⁵⁹ dough (which has to be delivered to the army; cf. Peah 1, Note 85) is obligated since one is responsible until it is delivered.” The Babli (Pesaḥim 6a) considers the possibility that delivery of annona may be replaced by a cash payment. In that case, the annona dough is clearly the Jew’s and is not necessarily made exclusively for the Gentile government. This seems not to be the position of the Yerushalmi; it might indicate a difference between Roman and Persian administrative practices.? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it⁶⁰ of the annona is purely rabbinical since people might think that the person baking does not give ḥallah for his own bread. This is not the Yerushalmi’s general attitude; cf. Kilaim 2, Notes 34–40.. But here it depends on the latter’s opinion.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Tosephta 1:4: “An annona ⁶⁰ Medieval authors (e. g., R. Simson, R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, R. Nissim Gerondi) read: “Maybe the Gentile decides not to take it.” It is also the reading of the ms. of R. S. Cirillo; this leads one to suspect that the reading is an attempt at harmonization with the Babli (Note 59).In a second opinion, the Babli holds that ḥallah

Rebbi Jehudah stated⁶¹: “If the inventory belongs to a Jew but Gentile workers make it, it is subject to ḥallah. If the inventory belongs to a Gentile and Jewish workers make it, it is not subject to ḥallah.” Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated this: “A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah.”

footnotes: ⁶¹ Tosephta 1:3, an anonymous statement.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle⁶²? In Mishnah 4:3 it is stated that if a dough is made in three parts of one qab each, two of wheat and one of rice, and the rice dough separates the two pieces of wheat dough, there is no obligation of ḥallah since the exempt rice prevents the two wheat doughs from being counted together. Similarly, the exempt flour belonging to the Gentile should prevent the Jew’s flour from being counted as an entity.? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?

footnotes: ⁶² Why should the dough of a Jew made in partnership with a Gentile ever be subject to ḥallah

There, we have stated⁶⁷ 10:4. The chapter deals with the obligatory gifts to the Cohen from profane slaughter: forearm, jawbone and first stomach (Deut. 18:3). These gifts are totally profane; no holiness is attached to them at any moment. Therefore, a Cohen who claims these gifts would have to prove by legal standards that the gifts are due. Because of the nature of the doubt, this proof is precluded.: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe⁶⁸ is questionable, he suggests that the proselyte sell his ḥallah to a Cohen.! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there⁶⁹ and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant⁷⁰ is separated because of religious scruples; no money can be collected since the proselyte cannot prove that he is not obligated..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Mishnah Ḥulin ⁶⁸ Since the duty of ḥallah ⁶⁹ In the case of profane slaughter, why can we not require that the Cohen’s gifts be sold exclusively to Cohanim? ⁷⁰ There is no problem whatsoever; the same rules apply in both cases. The Cohen’s share in a profanely slaughtered animal is profane; therefore, all rules of civil claims apply. Ḥallah

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated⁷¹. They split the dough in two and converted to Judaism. Then each of them took his part, made from less than 5 quarters of dough, and added to reach the threshhold of ḥallah. This then are new doughs and obligated. The entire paragraph is based on the anonymous opinion that forming the dough for baking causes the obligation of ḥallah. For Rebbi Aqiba, the questions are irrelevant. because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two qabim, split⁷² 7:9) declares the sentence to be meaningless., and then each of them added to it, are exempted because they were potentially obligated but exempted. A Jew and a Gentile made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated⁷³. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew⁷⁴, the question makes sense the way our text is written.? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt⁷⁵ 7:10) takes this as a declarative sentence. R. Joseph Caro points out that Maimonides goes out of his way to spell out that the Jew and the Gentile make the entire dough in partnership, implying that at the start they did not intend to split. Therefore, had the Gentile already been Jewish the dough would have been obligated when kneaded. R. Abraham ben David declares that the sentence makes sense only if read as a rhetorical question: “The Jew’s part is obligated, can the Gentile’s be exempt?”, which implies that both doughs are obligated..

footnotes: ⁷¹ The Gentiles made a dough which, if made by a Jew, would have been subject to ḥallah ⁷² One has to explain with R. Joseph Caro that they made the dough with the explicit understanding that they would split before the final shaping. Then the obligated dough would become exempt at the time of splitting. If they make the dough in common and only later decide to split, it is not different from smaller breads taken together in a basket where the basket combines them, cf. Mishnah 2:4. R. Abraham ben David (Note to Maimonides, Bikkurim ⁷³ This is more or less the case treated in the Mishnah. ⁷⁴ R. Abraham ben David reads: Would the Jew’s part not be obligated only because of the Gentile? This reading is accepted by R. Joseph Caro who explains that without the Gentile’s flour the Jew’s dough certainly would be exempt. But if the Gentile becomes Jewish and is now obligated for ḥallah ⁷⁵ Maimonides (Bikkurim

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts⁷⁶. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt⁷⁷ 10:4 that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the ‘omer offering is obligated for tithes. Since the cut grain has to be cleaned before milling, that cleaning process is the equivalent of shaping the heap in a regular harvest. The anonymous majority holds everywhere that all Temple grain is exempt from heave and tithes. Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to ḥallah.. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt⁷⁸ 67a.. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power⁷⁹ 67a, holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic.? There is a difference since it is written (*Lev.*27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.⁸⁰ 4, Notes 129–131.” But is here⁸¹. not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread⁸² 27:30 it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected.. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple⁸³.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ In R. Eleazar’s opinion, R. Aqiba accepts Mishnah 3:3 without change. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that “layman” is mentioned only as contrast to “Temple”. This seems to contradict the statements in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 5–6. ⁷⁷ Shaping the heap is the end of grain processing, which triggers the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Aqiba states in Mishnah Menaḥot ⁷⁸ This argument is brought without a dissenting voice in Babli Menaḥot ⁷⁹ The Babli, Menaḥot ⁸⁰ The ethnicity of the farmer is not mentioned. The questioner, and the rabbis quoted in the last sentence, must hold with R. Meïr that possession by a Gentile does not remove the obligations imposed on produce of the Land; cf. Peah ⁸¹ In the laws of ḥallah ⁸² If this מ is partitive, there is no reason why in Lev. ⁸³ It is implied that in the matter of grain grown by a Gentile in the Land, R. Meïr reports the position of R. Aqiba.A Genizah text reads רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Temple’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple”. This may be the better text.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken⁹¹ for ḥallah but most of it is exempt from ḥallah., if he can provide for it from another place⁹² Since ḥallah as a heave must be given from what is earmarked, the Tosephta (2:2) requires that one make a new dough and put it in the same place as the problematic ṭevel dough to earmark it and take there the full ḥallah for the new dough and a proportionate amount for the offending sourdough. Maimonides in his Commentary follows the Tosephta but in his Code (Bikkurim 7:11) he requires simply that the second dough be subject to ḥallah. The latter is the reasonable interpretation of the Mishnah. he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything⁹³ from the ṭevel dough in the required amount, 1/24 of the entire dough. Even though in general it is forbidden to give heave from what already is freed from the obligation, it is stated in the next Mishnah that the dough in question is only rabbinically ṭevel; for biblical standards the sourdough has disappeared in the dough whose obligation was already satisfied. Therefore, the ṭevel extended to the entire dough is rabbinic in character and the rabbinic obligation of ḥallah overrides the, in this case rabbinic, requirement to give from obligated dough.. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives⁹⁴, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything⁹⁵ but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion⁹⁶. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say⁹⁷ disappears in a majority of permitted food. If the prohibition were biblical, ṭevel sour dough in rice cake would have to be treated according to the previous Mishnah. ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

footnotes: ⁹¹ This is now ṭevel ⁹² From a third dough which is obligated for ḥallah. ⁹³ He must take ḥallah ⁹⁴ Olives are harvested by shaking the trees and are subject to heave and tithes; plucked olives are collected by the poor after the harvest and are exempt. Similarly, harvested grapes are obligated and gleanings exempt. ⁹⁵ Including the poor people’s part since not giving heaves is a deadly sin and it is not clear whether what he takes is actully obligated or free. ⁹⁶ Since the exempt olives or grapes were mixed with the farmer’s, it is assumed that the farmer bought them from the poor. If not, he has to buy them now so he may take out the tithe. Technically, the farmer has to take full tithe in order to give heave of the tithe but then he may retain the part attributable to the exempt fruits for himself. ⁹⁷ This is a rabbinic prohibition; by biblical standards ṭevel

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since⁸⁵ 10), it is stated here that in the Mishnah a substantial amount is needed and “having the taste” does not mean “it tastes like rice cake but an admixture of wheat is noticeable” but “it actually tastes like wheat bread.” Since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is the only author reported to have quantified this statement, we have to follow him. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds⁸⁶. A Mishnah⁸⁷ disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain⁸⁸ it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that⁸⁹ but of which ḥallah was not yet taken. That sourdough is ṭevel for ḥallah and subject to more restrictive rules. In this case, “can be tasted” means the minute amounts discussed in Terumot 10, Halakhot 7–10; the quote is irrelevant for the discussion here.: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Tosephta 2:1. Since, in general, “imparting taste” needs only minute quantities (as discussed in Terumot ⁸⁶ Other than rice and millet which substitute for grain. ⁸⁷ Mishnah 3:8. ⁸⁸ Sourdough is used in small quantities. ⁸⁹ The problem addressed is that of active sourdough taken from dough subject to ḥallah

Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya¹⁰⁰ asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten¹⁰¹. 6:9). Even the explanation by R. H. Kanievski, that at some place the original offering is still recognizable, does not work since the fistful may be taken only out of the Temple vessel in which the offering was dedicated. One must conclude that the question of practical use is considered a technicality which can be left to the Sages at the time of the Messiah. Since flour offerings before the lifting of the fistful are forbidden to everybody, Cohen and layman, it is reasonable to compare the laws of these offerings to those of ṭevel,? Do I read for this (Lev. 2:3): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read (Num. 18:28) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”¹⁰² mixed with profane flour can be put in order by taking the heave from itself.? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place¹⁰³ mixed with profane can be used to put certain ṭevel in order! then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ In the Rome ms. “R. Yose ben Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya”; this is unlikely to be correct. ¹⁰¹ On the face of it, it would seem that the question does not even start since if the two kinds of flour are mixed it seems impossible to take out a fistful of the offering and burn it on the altar since it is forbidden to burn profane material on the altar. On the other hand, the remainder may be eaten only after the fistful was brought to the altar (Lev ¹⁰² Mishnah 7 states clearly that in absence of other produce, the ṭevel ¹⁰³ Nobody accepts that ṭevel

They said, Rebbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question. What is the difference between him who takes from itself for itself and him who takes from it for another place? When he takes from itself for itself, since this ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear¹⁰⁴ in the profane is small, it has disappeared by biblical standards and it is not legally ṭevel. In this case, ṭevel and profane, even if consisting of similar material, are considered two distinct kinds and the rules of annulment apply. The requirement to give heave from the entire heap is purely rabbinical; any reference to a biblical source is inappropriate.. When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear¹⁰⁵ is genuine; part of it is destined to become heave. If a minute amount of it fell into heave, it would fall into its own kind and could not disappear. In the Genizah fragment, the cases have been telescoped into one: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵעָשׂוֹת חוּלִין כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטַל.. The scribe left out from להעשות to להעשות.. Rebbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear¹⁰⁶ Since part of ṭevel is going to be heave, this also is falling into its own kind and no part of it can be disregarded..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ As explained in the Mishnah, if the amount of ṭevel ¹⁰⁵ In that case, the ṭevel ¹⁰⁶ This is the inverse case, in which a minute amount of heave fell into ṭevel.

But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra¹⁰⁸. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ The case introduced by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya must be that profane flour fell onto a flour offering that was in a Temple vessel. Flour dedicated for an offering but not yet placed in a Temple vessel is not yet a flour offering. Since flour is not fluid, we have to assume that the offering is at the bottom and the flour on top with an unrecognizable boundary in between. If the upper flour is assimilated to the lower then there is no offering since the upper flour was not dedicated. If the lower part remains an offering then the upper becomes suspended unusable since it was sanctified by the Temple vessel but is not an offering because it is not dedicated. Therefore, the entire flour is invalid for any use.

It was stated¹¹⁰ sour dough in a dough which already is fully profane. A similar statement is in Tosephta 2:2: “If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken, he brings flour from another place and adds to obtain four quarters to make it obligated in proportion.” In the formulation of the Halakhah, the ṭevel dough is made from exactly one quarter. Therefore, if one makes a new dough of exactly one qab which is made to “bite” the profane dough, one has a total of 5 quarters of obligation and may take only ḥallah of the obligated, not from the already exempt. This means in general that if the amount of sour dough is x, the amount needed to avoid giving ḥallah for everything is (5 quarters - x). In this way, neither does one take ḥallah from another place nor does one have to take ḥallah for everything.: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ This refers to the first case in the Mishnah, ṭevel

This means that biting is biblical¹¹³ (or Tosephta) quoted in the previous paragraph, that a dough prepared from 4 quarters if it bites a dough with 1 quarter of ṭevel produces dough obligated for ḥallah.. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical¹¹⁴. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions¹¹⁵. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there¹¹⁶ 1:1. The loaves cannot be baked yet; the Tanna must hold that ṭevel does not have the status of profane food. The Ṭevul Yom(Chapter 2, Note 37, Terumot 5, Note 68) is almost pure; his touch disables heave but has no influence on profane food. According to the House of Hillel, the touch of a Ṭevul Yom disables the ḥallah-heave in one loaf only.: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”¹¹⁷. 22:7. The Ṭevul Yom may eat of the loaves even before sundown (after ḥallah was taken). This is obvious for those who hold that ṭevel is like profane in matters of contamination with impurity. The commentators who did not have the Genizah text before them either omitted the words אוכל טהור with R. S. Cirillo’s ms. or switched טמא אוכל טהור into טהור אוכל טמא. In any case, the implication is that while the House of Hillel accept biting as a conduit for impurities other than that of the Ṭevul Yom, these derivative impurities can never be biblical.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure¹¹⁸. 22:6–7.; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical¹¹⁹ is based on biblical verses, for all other forms of impurity the rules of the Ṭevul Yom do not apply; biting for them is a conduit of impurity.. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten¹²⁰ because of another dough biting the one it was taken from, the ṭevel is only rabbinical and nothing can be inferred about the biblical status of biting (R. Eliahu Fulda)..

footnotes: ¹¹³ The baraita ¹¹⁴ He has to declare all of Mishnaiot 7–8 as purely rabbinical. ¹¹⁵ R. Joḥanan says not biblical, R. Simeon ben Laqish says biblical. ¹¹⁶ Mishnah Ṭevul Yom ¹¹⁷ This refers to Lev ¹¹⁸ Lev ¹¹⁹ Since the exceptional status of the Ṭevul Yom ¹²⁰ If the sour dough only became ṭevel

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality¹²¹ 4:1. Note 10, Ma‘serot 5:2, Note 25 ff.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state¹²² in the style of the Mishnah, probably dealing with several doughs in one vessel where for all of them there is a doubt and ḥallah cannot be taken from another place. This can only happen if the ṭevel is a small part of the entire dough; in all cases of the Mishnah there is a plurality of profane matter.: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time¹²³ and profane food, with more profane than ṭevel, and that heave was then mixed again (as minority component) with profane food, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish there is no doubt that the second mixture never can be biblical dema‘ even in a time when all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical. Since, in principle, rabbinic ordinances are valid only as “fences around the Law”, there can be no reason to take heave a second time. For R. Joḥanan, if all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical the second mixture is dema‘ and the heave has to be lifted.. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Cf. Terumot ¹²² This must refer to a baraita ¹²³ If heave was taken from a mixture of ṭevel

Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards¹²⁴? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Biblical heave is due only for grain, wine, and olive oil.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken¹²⁵ since from demay flour ḥallah may be taken from the pure for the impure. to have it available in purity to separate from it¹²⁶.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder¹²⁷ and according to R. Simeon ben Laqish should disappear in whatever the plurality is. disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it¹²⁸. Then the remainder cannot disappear in the ḥallah.. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together¹²⁹ 5:2. He is required to declare exactly the amount taken and indicate its place in the heap from which it is going to be taken..” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one¹³⁰ 3:5, Note 60. The rabbis require that the places of heaves and tithes should be indicated in detail.. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends¹³¹.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ To watch this piece in purity while he may make more dough, possibly in impurity. It is assumed that the grain is demay ¹²⁶ Mishnah 4:6. ¹²⁷ Which still is ṭevel ¹²⁸ He makes a physical sign to mark the part which is now ḥallah ¹²⁹ Mishnah Demay ¹³⁰ This is discussed in Terumot ¹³¹ Since R. Joḥanan implies that the designation is automatic, there is no objection to R. Simeon ben Laqish’s explanation.

¹³²“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality¹³³. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe¹³⁴.

footnotes: ¹³² Tosephta Terumot 5:1. He puts one pumpkin aside to watch in purity for heave of the harvest of an entire field. ¹³³ This would prove that there is disagreement also for heave which is purely rabbinical. ¹³⁴ According to Rebbi, he has not only to make a physical sign on the pumpkin but he has to cut off the heave part and deliver it to a Cohen on the day of harvest. According to Rabban Simeon, he may wait until the entire pumpkin is heave.

“¹³⁵ 5:1. The language is difficult. One would assume that amphoras full of wine are in a מרתף, a wine cellar, not in a בור, which is either a cistern or the vat into which the pressed grape juice flows and where it is turned into wine. In addition, one has to separate the prospective heave from the amphora before turning it into heave, otherwise it would diffuse in the entire amphora and turn everything into dema‘. Since the statement is the continuation of the one about pumpkins, one has to say that an amount of ṭevel wine sufficient for the entire cistern was first taken out, put in a separate vessel, but not declared to be heave. Then the wine in the cistern is taken out by filling it into amphoras one by one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, who in the first part did not require that the place of heave be indicated, permits here successive declarations that a certain part of the separated wine should be heave. Rebbi, who in the first part did require that the place of heave be indicated, permits only giving heave for all together since in a fluid no parts can be indicated. If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality¹³⁷. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked¹³⁸ but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked¹³⁹. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews¹⁴⁰?

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Continuation of Tosephta Terumot ¹³⁷ All commentators, from R. Eliahu Fulda to R. S. Lieberman, note that one has to switch the places of “disappear” and “not disappear”, against the evidence of both mss. As has been noted before, the two mss. have a common source which already must have contained the error. The problem is for Rabban Simeon who permits giving heave piecemeal, when it is unavoidable that at some point most of the contents of the vessel will be heave. ¹³⁸ One puts the vessel containing the potential heave in the middle of all amphoras to be put in order. ¹³⁹ That seems to be an impossible statement since heave has to be given from what is earmarked (Mishnah 1:9). The meaning is that giving piecemeal, even if the amphora to be put in order touches the vessel containing the potential heave, might not be considered earmarked since the wine which becomes heave is undefined. ¹⁴⁰ One might put a thread around all amphoras. But this seems to be unnecessary, cf. Note 137 and the end of Halakhah 4.