Mishnah 1: If Two Women Each Made a Qab1 and They Touched One Another, Even If They Are of the Same Kind They Are Exempt
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
'ΪΓ3Ί pD D*tM TIU; v>3>3 ID rip ΓΙ* IVJJ·) ΨΨ i^V Ο'ψί >ΓΙψ :N fl)VÖ (fol. 59c) .moa ύ>»ι Ν'^ψι n»n ρ« ΠΠΝ nwN>\y "irw ijppi .p-no? inis Mishnah 1: If two women each made a qab1 and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated2, different kinds3 are exempt. 5 1 They separately made bread are obligated since 2 > /4. dough and now are baking it together 2 If the doughs touch or are on in the same oven. Separately, the the same baking sheet. doughs are exempt but both together 3 This is defined in Mishnah 4:2. ηψκ Drip ·)3ηί> -ION .'^Ό D>\M >ΓΙψ :N (fol. 59d) rmiN wy rii?po ΠΠΝ Π\ΙΪΝ on ni-papo ο?ηψ JTj?p)o nj>N ηηκ π^ν on .πηΝ ηψΝ? oriiN wy πίτ?^ ο>ψ3 >jw .o>\w >ri\y? Dip» TÖ D3V .ΓΐίΟίρρ ΠΓΐίΜ ΓΙψίν Ν1Π ΐ\ΥΪ) Π13ρ» iniN η'ψίν Nin·) wibb oip)? tö γρπ ddp n>ri>>o .vytob >Γΐψ πη ί»κ JTjapjo ii'p-! 'pi τπ?Ρ2 ηίηίρρ .nisin I^SN ">? ^»ψ ,D>\M 'Γΐψ3 piiN Vwy riiv>i Halakhah 1: "Two women who each made," etc. Rebbi Johanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind4. They gave to one woman who minds5 the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make HALAKHAH 1 355 it at two different places? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she6 makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour]7, she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women8. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree9? 4 According to Maimonides 8 According to R. M. Margalit, (Bikkurim 7:1), followed by the later this now speaks of two men. As R. law codes, there is no difference Mei'r notes (Sotah 1:7, fol. 17a; Babli between men and women in this matter. Git tin 90a) men have different According to R. M. Margalit, the Mish- standards of cleanliness. Some men nah specifies women because women will not drink any more from a cup of are neat and insist that their bread be wine in which they found a fly, others separate from that of others while men will take the fly out and drink the usually do not care. The later remainder. A man adhering to a higher statement of R. Lazar seems to support standard of cleanliness will insist to R. M. Margalit but the uncertain gender keep his bread as separate as women in the text of the Halakhah might do. support Maimonides. 9 What is the status of the bread 5 If for some reason she insists on if the women kneaded their doughs keeping the two loaves strictly separately but at baking time they separated. decide to have them together? The 6 This may be read as "he". answer depends on one's position 7 One loaf of white flour, the regarding R. Aqiba's opinion in other one of whole wheat. This is Halakhah 3:5. counted as two different kinds. or> !m\p:i ni^n .ov ni>n i^n-) n^m -vdti ιηψ οηα-j vy> γη γιπν Ίϋψ i^arrr n'pna n^n .n^na -iwn ^ ni!?n o>3?)?n ·))3ΓΙ "Ι^ΓΙ^ Di> Ijiipa ,0na>n νίο .*noa ύ'»? ίΟψι 356 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR onpiN ^η π·»!1) .ov !m\?a na'n onpiN ->m mi Όψ)·) vyn?n> rop ΝΓΙ .naipn ntnj7# vrjpn *Vwa ipri i^arpf ov imoa nbna 10Ί:)3>η "I^N") iaio VNI -Π·ΡΠ naiprrbs -»Νψ •iT?nn rryioa psa np!?n> rop ty πψν ηψίνη ijnv Certain situations are connections for hallah but not for a tevul yom12, [others] for a tevul yom but not for hallah. A connection for hallah as we have stated: "But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt." They are not obligated for a tevul yom as we have stated there13: "If somebody collects pieces of hallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a tevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a tevul yom" We also stated there14: "Sanctified meat on which the sediment15 congealed." Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection16 even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for hallah·, as Rebbi Johanan said17, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from hallah. 10 Reading of a Genizah text. 138,140). But since the tevul yom has Leyden and Venice: pa^n. been purified, only his immediate touch 11 Reading of the Mishnah Tevul is damaging, not the touch by an Yom 2:5 and a Genizah text here. intermediary object. Therefore, if the Reading of the Leyden ms. and Venice tevul yom touches a loai of hallah, he print: Dip©, of the Rome ms. imp®, makes the hallah inedible, including showing that the misreading τ-τ, D-D everything connected with it. It is now was already in the common source of stated that the rules of connection the two mss. regarding the obligation of hallah are 12 The touch of a tevul yom makes not identical with the rules governing heave (including hallah) unusable and an eventual disqualification of the sacrifices impure (Demay 6:6, Notes hallah taken. HALAKHAH 1 357 13 Mishnah Tevul Yom 1:1, dealing connected to one another." "Sediment" with a Cohen who collects hallah from are the remainders of spices, single several households to carry home in fibers from the meat, and assorted one basket but does not intend to eat matrer which usually clings to the sides the different morsels together. of the cooking pot. Since any such 14 If the tevul yom touches one sediment will be scraped or washed off piece of hallah, that piece is unusable before the meat is eaten, it is but all the others are unimpaired. considered separate. 15 Mishnah Tevul Yom 2:5: 16 Separate pieces of sediment on "Sanctified meat on which the sediment one piece of meat are considered as congealed; if a tevul yom touched the one; in the case of hallah they would sediment, the pieces are permitted. If not be considered one as indicated by he touched a piece, it and all that the next statement by R. Johanan. clings to it are connected. Rebbi 17 Chapter 1:8, first paragraph. Johanan ben Nuri says both are oy ban oy Tiia-io^» o>onn wjpi -pp in* Λ mwa (foi. 59c) npiN nw 15 >11 .p\?nn IP ^n ion oy ViH)?*>? pniy^n .ppv^fl .n? oy paip^n p^an ικψ Mishnah 2: What is the same kind? Wheat combines18 with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Johanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another. 18 Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 40 ff. VP pa^n j^n on N3in 2*1 νγπ^Ψ inp na^n (foi. 59d) Dy *n\?io? i^N "p-iiyyj pp .o>o>nn Dy «pos»? ppoiD •>?3γι γρν .m oy paip^ö ρραη ΊΗΨ -ιαίΝ >*γυ-|inP ^an .ο>\?>ηη 358 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR pa πιο Nna N»ari ^ rray-τ ^ oy n? Vino*)? τφρττ!?? υτι •lfi^V 'ail miN ην rri ION .inba pa η» .p-wa pbiba pa»n tow? Halakhah 2: Was is left19? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! "Rebbi Johanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another." There are Tannaüm who state: "All kinds combine with one another.20" In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting21, exempt when mixed. 19 What is left in the statement of difference bentween the anonymous the anonymous Tanna that R. Johanan Tanna and R. Johanan ben Nuri is clear ben Nuri could disagree with? It was but then one has to ask what is the stated in Halakhah 1:1 (Note 39) that difference between Mishnaiot 1:1 and oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail a kind 4:2. of barley. Since the Mishnah here, in 21 Since by Mishnah 1 the doughs contrast to Mishnah Kilaim 1:1, com- of two different owners never were bines spelt and wheat, there are only obligated, if one of them increases his 5 two kinds as far as the rules of hallah dough to /4 qab the obligation of are concerned and the statement of R. hallah is new and valid. The exemption Johanan ben Nuri seems to be meaning- of the mixed dough is explained in less. Chapter 3, Note 72. 20 In this formulation, the HALAKHAH 3 359 •Valpro V^pio ij?·; niN nt?·) vaj? :> fiiv» (foi.