'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. 59c)
.nbna p?*"!)?*» yspisi iJibn π^φ^ψ nil
Mishnah 3: Two qabim and a qab of rice or22 heave between them do not combine23. If a thing of which hallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to hallah.
22 Reading of the Rome ms. and intrinsically exempt or from flour the Constantinople print: nnnn in; this exempt because of its status of probably is a gloss. sanctity) cannot become obligated since
23 Two loaves made of bread flour the exempt dough acts as a barrier as if each of which is too small to be subject it were of iron. But a dough which is to hallah are both touching an exempt not exempt cannot separate, even if it dough (which is either from material now is no longer subject to hallah.
·)3>3ΤΙ Ν>Ί niN I^E teN .Djanap w? niN :> (fol. 59d)
by njpnjp ύ>Ν ύ'Ώη >ι> by niN "HPK "Ι^Ίΐ] nnvu?
Nb-! nni-m ·)3'3ΓΙ ib>N iN .npmjp ·>33ρ>3 ro-ps η.Γ) n^öö
.na-io^ö nPN η-).-)?? by nnn^ Ή>ρΝ ^η?) niN ·)3>5ΓΙ
.rittn^ ηίκ υηη no-jis ηη . Halakhah 3: Should one have stated "rice" but not "heave"? If we had stated "rice" but not "heave", we would have said that rice does not combine because it is not of that kind24, but heave25, which is of that kind, should combine. It is necessary to state "heave." If we had stated "heave" but not "rice", we would have said that heave does not combine because it is not dragged in26, but rice, which is dragged in27, should combine. It is necessary to state "rice" and "heave". 24 Rice dough is never subject to 25 Of bread dough. hallah. 26 Dema' dough containing heave 360 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR flour is exempt from hallah (Mishnah to hallah if it tastes like bread 3:2). (Mishnah 3:6). 27 Dough containing rice is subject 2p_ .Ήοιω ύ'Ν njpnri ij? .«nx?*» TO VÖTTP ap WN niN vnn nn.oNi dwk ιρ_ ιπν VP 7 •Ή*'? n^n ι;? n»n ->5 11a >ι*η .ηιο^ρ yspijri ι» in^n n!?v>W -m .«Π*)? η^η ip «π*)ρ νπρο ap 15 •CD*?V> ιηο ύ'Ν π!?η ijm?> νιπ ίϊο vnpo .ίϊ?η vi ηοι νπρο ρη ηρ τ : - : τ τ "28Α qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema' does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile's qab does not combine. A qab of another kind29 combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines30. A qab of something of which hallah was taken in the middle does combine31." Rebbi Abun bar Hiyya asked: Does a qab of hallah combine? Rebbi Halaphta ben Shaul stated: "A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of hallah does not combine." What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and hallah! Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, hallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated32. 28 In different formulation, sion follows the Tanna of the reform- Tosephta 2:3-4. ulated statement (Note 19); the Rome 29 In the Tosephta, for wheat ms. reads ηΐϊ» lrx "it does not com- dough this is restricted to spelt which bine"; possibly following the anon- can combine both with wheat and with ymous Tanna in Mishnah 2. barley. The Tosephta follows R. 30 The two doughs at the two sides Johanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah; the are made from last year's grain harvest, Yerushalmi baraita in the Leyden ver- the one in the middle is from this HALAKHAH 4 361 year's grain; cf. Mishnah 4. hallah is a heave; then R. Abun bar 31 This is a case of the Mishnah. Hiyya's question is answered in the 32 One could have argued that Mishnah. VPywn ρ !?\?ύ VPP13 2 ^Dl οηίνψ ^P o^VD ip ^D >a> "τπν") τηι*-!?3ρ D-iin ppora ιρι οηίνψ ap"! con ip ,·)ηψ η» >a> ipl o>\?n ι ρ νγι pptpis ip ιηίν'ψ ip p\?n αρ ν^ϊ* "ipn ν'!? .Νΐηψ np ιρκ rp'n na γι! 'an .NII Ν'Ϊ? ysptf? vpyra νρνΨ trib >3-1 .yspisa νόνψ "pa rip yspisa pppis pa no iya "paaYf "p"iar) ii>pa Νΐηψ 'iap o>\?nn oy panp^p vpo^o VN V1V?i?7 V??*1- .ib npip i3pp pirn Νΐηψ iv?p .V? ηρ*τρ Νΐηψ ν!?ν Halakhah 4: "Half a qab of wheat, half a gaö of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed33. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.34" He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Hiyya said, Rebbi Hanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar. 33 Tosephta 2:5. There, the 34 A similar text in Tosephta 2:4: reading is: "He takes from the spelt." "A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab The meaning is the same as in the of spelt do combine. If he takes heave, baraita here, that the entire heave is he takes from each one separately taken from spelt since that combines since one does not give heave from one with both wheat and barley. species for another." In this version, 362 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR the rules for hallah and heave are qab which causes separate obligations different; the discussion shows that this of hallah. As R. Eliahu Fulda explains, is not the position of the Yerushalmi. the barley in the middle is also subject It follows that the baraita represents a to hallah; it is not different from dough tradition different from the Tosephta. of which hallah already was taken. It is not necessary to assume with Therefore, the obligation of hallah Maimonides that the qab here is a exists and has to be satisfied following 5 larger measure, equal to /4 standard the rules of heave. avn to vn -pari -ικργπ no? .p nnni -Y\yyo "|»;>y> in rov >5*1 ΐζΡΓί-τ r»93 ."intern H03 vynm -"."ojpiy na?? avn worn n>i3D IAD? i»>ri pis ,·ρ ϊοπ iiN .«nap yspisn ")p in^n π^φ^ψ *m ")öri rton «nnp .KID ^w« N!? ivyy ηψψ "inn") ^wn Νΐηψ n^n N>n .HD^nö noni -wyQ unw DD^O Rebbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe36? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Hananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which hallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that hallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find hallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice37. 35 Reading of the Rome ms. and newborn animals subject to tithe is 10. the parallels in Babli Bekhorot 55a, The Mishnah (Bekhorot 9:7) states that Tosephta Bekhorot 7:3. Leyden and animals are close to one another to be Venice: 'arma , an unidentified place. counted together for tithes if they are Kefar Othnai was near the location of within grazing distance of one another; ancient Megiddo. this is fixed at 16 mil. It is stated that 36 Lev. 27:32; from the verse it is the distance from Kefar Hananiah to clear that the minimum number of Sepphoris is 16 mil, from Sepphoris to HALAKHAH 5 363 Kefar Othnai also 16 mil. Tosephta whether it is sufficient that the owner (.Bekhorot 7:3) and Babli (Bekhorot 55a) had animals at Sepphoris which were in state that there is an obligation of the past counted for tithe, similar to animal tithe if the total number of the situation described in Mishnah 3. newborn animals of a single owner in 37 The rule of Mishnah 3 is Kefar Hananiah, Sepphoris, and Kefar rabbinic; for animal tithe only biblical Othnai is at least ten with at least one standards apply. R. Jonah's question is being at Sepphoris. R. Jonah now asks answered in the negative. ιρίΝ n£i τη ΐί?"! νπη ιρ :Ί nsw» (ω. 59c) .η£η ιοίΝ Γφρν ΐ|?π ίο η^η .myiN .yspisn ίο ,η!?η οηηίκ OODHI τ - τ τ -: - Mishnah 4: If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another38, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes hallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be hallah but the Sages say, it is not hallah. .ϊ^ρ iipin nyw r>i»n)? d>oddi i\?ia nn>py ππν ntpy ικψνΐ ~>ϊηι Mishnah 5: If hallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity39 becomes a leniency. 38 While two doughs together are given from both kinds of grain; the obligated for hallah as noted in the question is only how this has to be previous Halakhah, it is forbidden to done. give heave from one year's harvest for 39 Of R. Aqiba who treats hallah another year's (Mishnah Terumot 1:5). from less than the minimal volume as Everybody agrees that hallah must be genuine hallah. 364 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR 5 Μ ."in cp:p)? ρν^ηι pnora ion γπν> :ri n^n (foi. 59d) κ^η ·>άί ί»Ν ΪΟ ·|ψ>·) win . νηηίηψ -inii? vvto VNI V\?>m pppia 135*17 N»V\? -niy κιηW DiS wn V? ·η* ^ 71!>Ρ WW^1 ^ η·|>ρ ριψ^ρ1) ·ρο-ρηψ -ιοί!? Halakhah 5: Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other40. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other41. 40 Terumot Mishnah 2:4. requires that hallah be taken in such a 41 This is forbidden, Terumot Mish- way that dough from both sides is nah 1:5. It follows that the prohibition taken; the difference between him and of the rabbis is rabbinic, not biblical. the rabbis is only whether hallah can R. Eliahu Fulda points out that the be taken together or must be taken argument is weak since even R. Ismael separately. nnn^i ίο» wnani -DJJ npp N'!^ ?b >»79 ra>pv -ay nNun Ν!?Ψ rb ι>»7Ρ .nnn^ it nrj rnp?? ίΟψ N'i? vph i^n nm .n!?n nl?n nttib Tfr >»7p '17 ΠΝ>ηη Νty nwitf? N'bi "irpN^? -«ait? n^ pm>? ni-pan by nipin^ it nrj riiTpn ^ nonip it nr) Rebbi Aqiba compares it to not fully processed produce; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is heave42. But the rabbis compare HALAKHAH 5 365 it to produce not yet one-third ripe; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is not heave43. They had second thoughts and said, it is similar neither to not fully processed produce nor to produce not yet one-third ripe44! But Rebbi Aqiba compares it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken, and they were taken; but the rabbis compare it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken45. 42 Mishnah Terumot 1:10. be heave if there is nothing it can be 43 Mishnah Hallah 1:3, following given for. Similarly, they will hold that R. Eleazar. hallah tentatively designated for the 44 Since it also must follow the case the dough will reach critical size majority opinion in Mishnah Hallah 1:3. cannot be hallah if no obligated dough 45 Everybody agrees that produce is available at the time of designation. tentatively designated as heave cannot -117η νπ .rp!?r)ö ri^n η^η -1ΡΝ7 ηρ ηρ>ρ ήΐΓ) rnpN Νΐη νι?>ηρ o>pDni ipia Γφρν ρ^τπ η» ίο .ν'ϊ> rnin .nnin -117p They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, hallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: "Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate," this implies that it is by biblical standards46. 46 Since the combined dough of 2 must be taken litterally; it is not an 5 qab is subject to biblical hallah in expression meaning "less than /4 qab" everybody's opinion, R. Aqiba must since in Mishnah Idiut 1:2, Shammai is declare hallah from a single qab as reported to fix the obligation of hallah biblical hallah. at one qab (and Hillel at 2 qabim). R. In R. Aqiba's statement, "one qab" Aqiba must hold that any amount 366 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR which is declared hallah in any tra- hallah (Maimonides in his Commen- dition must be recognized as biblical tary.) 'an iipin -U9N7 IN)? .ί-ιριη ίίηρ »iiri ΓΡΝ .ü?ip iipin Nil)?? .pni ί-ιριη ibip (foi. 60a) .ni'pv "It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency." Some Tannai'm state: "The leniency becomes a severity". He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis. ηπίν^ n»-pn n^n >73 din !?v»3 niwe (foi. 59c) χι^ηψ Γηυηψ »£7 n£n 7>iro wty wnap rnnoa •Ipiön yo ν !?ψί νο\?π ^ "ήπ\?η ρ Mishnah 6: A person may take for hallah from a dough prepared in purity and from which hallah has not yet been taken, to use it continuously for hallah of demay47 until it decays, since hallah of demay may be taken from pure for impure and from what is not earmarked48. 47 It is not very clear what "hallah version of his Commentary, "hallah of of demay" is since hallah has the status demay" refers to any hallah whose of Great Heave which everybody is status as biblical obligation is in doubt. supposed to have given. It seems, with 48 Since dough or bread bought R. Simson, that "hallah of demay" is from an untrustworthy person always hallah taken for bread bought from an has the status of ritual impurity, the untrustworthy baker, as described in pure dough set aside for hallah cannot Mishnah Demay 5:1. According to be combined with the. impure for Maimonides, in his Code and the later which it is designated. Therefore, the HALAKHAH 6 367 procedure described here is restricted hallah) does not have to be earmarked, to the case where the heave (i. e., bpiNö "τν ϊμ ο*τν Γηρηψ "U> inn na^ri (foi. 60a) nriiN pa-)V\y"| v>dw jwpw nöop din ioiN« ^in V? ^νρψ? ϊοίΝ)? -^n ^MÖ ΓΠΡί* J1^"! nwpio Nöorp .riNipw? .•"TN τ τ Halakhah 6: What means "until it decays"? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food50? Let us hear from the following51: "If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity52." It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food. 50 No food prohibitions do apply (Pesahim 15b, 45b) quotes a similar but to anything unfit as dog food. anonymous baraita. It follows that the 51 Another version is in Tosephta Babli decides with R. Hananiah the Terumot 9:10: "Rebbi Hananiah the Second of the Cohanim but the Second of the Cohanim says: Heave Yerushalmi against him. Maimonides which is no longer human food but is (.Hilkhot Tum'at Okhlin 2:14) follows dog food is impure by the impurity of the Yerushalmi, against the protests of food and one burns it in its place." R. Abraham ben David. Since there is a name attached to this 52 One burns it immediately as statement, it is implied that the impure; one does not treat it as majority will deny that anything which suspended as would be required if the is not human food can become impure status of impurity were in doubt. in the impurity of food. The Babli 11 -α :n -»ιοί n^n"! ,n?»n by inn v? vo-pnyj mTm κιη Dipoi ^yö po-pri^ ·)π3ν rn owa yooj 368 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR ΝΓΙΝ rDj?ri>? NW Ν7Π3 .nJliM .nmiip ip vyn?N ni^p ipri JVN DON ijnv >:n> ϊπν This means53 that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots54 for carrots at a place where [the leaves] are eaten. This happened with Gamliel the twin who had forgotten to put his carrots in order. He came and asked Rebbi Johanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery! 53 The Mishnah which permits dough. using dough close to being spoiled as 54 Cf. Demay 2, Note 63. hallah (i. e., heave) for freshly prepared "IP ribpj ivyvp ripnri >pq NJVN ^WO npnjp wi pata >t?i> >5-) ιών .·)?ψ-!?3 Nb >Ν»7>ψ -WV» rinnjp Nn\?n bv -iKprq rips wnan Nb pao npn^ vynan pao ρρ^ρ 15N niprup ρ ΊΡΝ"! τιννψνρι ripnri Ν^νψ ιχ ^DKTI ΪΟ ηρνυρ ^ρ-τη ϊχ >ΝΊΙΠ ρ ")Ν3 n^ini INS 1? Ί^νρψ "PN .1? ^ 'NPTD .fi3-iVw> nsvvi It was stated: "Heave of the tithe of demay55." Come and see, since certain heave of the tithe may be taken from pure for impure56, heave of the tithe of demay not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, we deal with a doubt of Great Heave when it is not sure whether Great Heave was taken or not57. As you say, "from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it;"58 he asserts that from demay for demay it is the same. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana59 said, there60 he wants to eat it, here he wants to burn it. HALAKHAH 7 369 55 Quote from an otherwise interpretation that also in the Mishnah, unknown baraita. From the text one demay is used in a loose, non-technical may understand that the baraita stated way. that heave of the tithe of demay 58 Demay 5:10, Note 144. follows the same rules as hallah for 59 Also called R. Simeon ben demay dough as spelled out in the Barsana. Mishnah. 60 The baraita is needed; its con- 56 Mishnah Bikkurim 2:5; cf. tents cannot be derived from the Terumot 2, Note 9. Mishnah here since the heave of the 57 But in general, the term demay tithe is to be eaten whereas in the implies that Great Heave was taken Mishnah the dough reserved for hallah and only tithes and heave of the tithe has to be burned in the end when it are questionable. This supports the becomes inedible. VVm WW (fol. 59c) iniN .note !7N"jai"} .rpyuvjoi πίΤψν»?? ΐΓΡΓή*ν?3 ibip WQN ηηκ n^n -ιηίκ -i$y>> ^ϊ) .Nnit»:?, iiton >ϊπψ .ο>?*π >Γΐψι Η?*!? ntn ibipi Mishnah 7: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria61; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two hallot in Syria62 but Rebbi Eliezer says one hallah63. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. 61 The parts of David's kingdom holds that the laws of the Holy Land not conquered by the 12 tribes under extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel Joshua; cf. Peah 7, Note 119. R. Eliezer holds that Syria is essentially outside 370 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR the Land and only selected laws of the order to remind people that the Land are extended to apply there. original duty is to give hallah to a 62 As explained in Mishnah 8. Cohen, it was established that some Biblical law restricts the duty of hallah dough should be given to a Cohen. to the Land (Num. 15:18-19). Rabbinic This dough cannot be sanctified, practice extends the obligation to the otherwise it would be forbidden to the rest of the world but, since the soil recipient. outside the Land is intrinsically impure, 63 He denies that Syrian soil is any hallah outside the Land is impure impure. and must be burned. Nevertheless, in η>?Γ)3 2»Π N'i? Ijnv OW} 1Γ0Ν :? Τ\&Τ\ (fol. 60a) ίο};? to;? in N^abti >2*) >?ri .ran rp:n ·ρ:ρ ritaN n'DirD nnN^r ino .i^n top ΊΟΝ^ INÖ .nyw!? υηκ ήηυ'ΐρ n>p niiN 'πι τ τ ·· τ Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants64, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi65. Rebbi Halaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him66. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt. 64 These have acquired the here- 66 To take away an incentive to ditary right to remain tenants; this is a leave the Land for more profitable kind of lien on the real estate. farming in Syria. 65 For 200 years in one family. ϊH^m I?"» >11.21 »27 n!?n \ynan> rjn* Np^a oinpjn y? npton >1-1 >»ip rp?3D iön .»ηη n£n oppi* o^Ol 1*τψ03 Όϋρ ib "IÖN .·ρ32Τ7 "ΡΠΡ^Ο 13"! ΙΟΝ im?! Ν))? .Npixn η^η ty πψηί N'b -ja ^ΊΚΙ ηηητι ty 1?ίθ"\ρ HALAKHAH 7 371 "He who buys from a baker in Syria67 has to separate hallah as demay, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate hallah as demay.6S" Rebbi Hananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel said it right, what is the reason of the Sages? He said to him, just as Israel are not suspected in matters of heave in the Land, so they are not suspected in matters of hallah69 in Syria. 67 Since Rabban Gamliel holds that Rabban Gamliel that the sharecropper Syria is essentially a foreign country, is exempt because the grain is he holds that there hallah even in processed in the possession of the Temple times is only rabbinic in Gentile but hallah whose obligation character and the vulgar will not give starts in the house of the Jew follows hallah. exactly the laws of the Land. 68 Tosephta 2:5. This is part of a 69 Whose rules are those of the longer statement by R. Eleazar ben R. Great Heave. Zadoq who explains the position of τηητοτι Nnwa riton 'nvy γπβνγιϊο nns 'va n»n ~d υπν >3ί ... ττ... τ . _ *»· Τ τ · - ' τ •· ηηηΝ vp ηοηη οι!?3 ηηηΝ VN π!?ΓΙ "an -»ON .Nmta ninnn τ·.·":- ·• τ : τ ν - -: ' τ - - - · - τ τ · : η^ιο vyn?» ΝΙΠ^ ηηη^ rmiN ΓΙΝ$>?3 ·)? ON .Ο^? Rebbi Abun bar Hiyya asked: Since you said that there are two hallot in Syria, should there not be two heaves70 in Syria? Rebbi Haggai said, there comes nothing after hallah71 but after heave there comes something. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates72 were tevel for tithes! 70 The first to be burned and the 71 Taking hallah makes dough and second to be eaten. bread totally profane. 372 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR 72 The second one which cannot be burned, real heave or it would have to be rn ft ο^η Ν'^Ί Nnit>3 "»"τη TIJS vmnl? >21 ")3 ^wty* Ί3Ί vpn ·>άίί ηπ^η o>}rpn win? rmj»p v)ft ~»ακ .rpywin 1ί?ιηρ ίί'Νψ -m ΊΓΙ3^ ιηύ vby o'ynp πκρν ΊΙ?Ν lari .ri>ywin .ft ΐΓΐύ ηπίΝ τν'η -α ^3 >3Ί ·1?ζ) Ν:)ΓΙ .ρι^η ΪΧ ο>3Γ)3η win? rm^o ΠΪΝΙ rpywin 'in >ari Η1? ndjo ^2*1 π>> ΊΪΙΗ n^n vynan> tjns lisp!? η'ψίν γμνπ ·)»ι oinpin ·)>? npi!?n rov >3*1 n!?n \ynan> iw ftxy n-iNjpprn n>3n ^3» "EH in·) roi> >3-1 ιών ftyy nn.Nrina ·ρ3*π ή-αη rv;on >3*1 0W3 vyn?n> rjna xnwi ftyz np^O ->0N ϊψϊ iniN wiw 13 in »107 n£n vyn?n> tyns ϋ?ψ» itg?» τηψ yiv ON »EH nbn ins ^nto ins N3ö >31 ion .rvywin >3"» ν*τγι n>> n»n Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria73 but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their hallah74! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There75, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Hiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire76. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their hallah77! "78He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate hallah of demay19; from a private person and if he is a guest80 he does not have to separate hallah of demay" Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest HALAKHAH 7 373 for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another's place81. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate hallah of demay, but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate hallah of demayi2. Rebbi Abun bar Hiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah83? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land84, there outside the Land. 73 Against Mishnah Demay 1:3 person and his guests." Even if he is which restricts demay to the Land of the baker's guest but eats from the Israel. One may assume that in his time bread the baker makes for himself and the center of Jewish population had his family (R. Abraham ben David). moved from Galilee to Syria. The reading of the Rome ms., rnxnai 74 Since hallah is legitimate only if iVyx "from a private person and he is the dough was made from tithed flour. his guest" supports Maimonides 75 Demay 1, Note 172, explaining (Bikkurim 8:15). Hilkhot Tasbez the statement of the Mishnah that explains: "If one buys from a private hallah of a vulgar is exempt from the person one has to give extra hallah laws of demay. except if one is his guest or saw him 76 Since it is burned, the vulgar knead for another person." will not worry if heave of the tithe was 81 That other people trust him to not given. give their hallah. 77 The language of the statement 82 Since in this case, a field in excludes the argument of R. Abun bar Syria is subject to tithes; Mishnah Hiyya. Demay 6:11. 78 Tosephta 1:8. Cf. Tosefta ki- 83 Since he denies demay in Syria. Fshutah, p.799. 84 Mishnah Demay 1:3 deals only 79 I. e., give heave of the tithe and with the Land where all vulgars can be afterwards hallah. trusted to give hallah as they give 80 In the Tosephta, "from a private Great Heave. 374 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR "T^l M.N» n^n^ riiinNt w ίοίν T?"l tw*»» (foi. 59c) rinNi niNl? nnN rii!?n >jw torn tvi iron "TV") mao .γιπν n!pn inn τ -τ - ··: τ-: : τ τ - ·:· - - τ- ·: D>3£)>I to^pi "inanp ρκ ΐτρ!?ψ") "vtiw rö \y> oni^ tö VP ·)Π3>ψ·) *viy>\y rb VN OTp^ nnN·) -liNb ΤΊΠΝ πί!?η >Γΐψ .n^np -p-u ->»iN nn ,γι^οϊν ov innvpi .*viy>vy Mishnah 8: Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for hallah^5. The Land of Israel86 up to Akhzib, one hallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus87, two hallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure88, the one for the Cohen has no measure89. From Euphrates or Amanus inside90, two hallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure91, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a tevul yom may eat it92. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion93. 85 In the biblical Land of Israel. Land, Mishnah 2:7. 86 The actual Land of Israel of the 89 A purely symbolic hallah to be Second Commonwealth; cf. Mishnah eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of Sevi'it 6:1, Note 3, for the geographic the rules to be restored in the times of details. the Messiah. 87 One has to add, with Mishnah 90 The rest of Syria, domain of Sevi'it 6:1, "any place held by the biblical promise; cf. Sevi'it 6:1, Note 3. immigrants from Egypt," i. e., the 91 Both hallot are symbolical since regions North of Akhzib described as that region was not under obligation of tribal territories in the book of Joshua. hallah even during the First 88 The true hallah which cannot be Commonwealth. eaten since the impurity of Gentile 92 He is forbidden true hallah. lands is extended rabbinically to any 93 This also shows that the region not inhabited by Jews. The symbolic hallah is no true heave, cf. "measure" is that for hallah of the Berakhot 1, Note 3. HALAKHAH 8 375 -ηπ oy jrn>v>i jm>3> nta^i rnitw nwa (foi. 59c) η^υ) in>wn by Mishnah 9: But it94 is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux95, and to women during menstruation96 or after childbirth97. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen98. 94 The purely symbolic hallah 95 Lev. 15:1-15, 25-30. mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By 96 Lev. 15:19-24. rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for 97 Lev. 12:1-8. people whose impurity originates in 98 Even a vulgar who cannot be their own body. expected to follow all rules of purity. ly-! in?»? irian tyi i'W νγρ:^» V»'? :n na^n (foi. 60a) tmr)\?P yaw Νίπψ-ϊο ΛΙ,Ν^ ^n w >Ν·) ^ΊΝΓΙ NVI it >N >3ΓΙ .tonzs vp'3n ruin ^inlpi torn υί-η\?>? .!?ίθ"ψ? o>33>i OJION oinnQ .on*)? bm *ry! tojpNi υί-ιηυη ninp oin ij^n n2si*i Νΐηψ-^ο ->piN π-fv .^H1? ^in οιηπ» .bio'vp? D>i?>·) o»n oob rrm o> bii^i bN-ιψ? nid nrj bNVy? vw τ??? oin nisin ^o ,d> biiJi oDb nt bm^ o>3?>"! oinnp ly·) brop σύ^ρίΝ "Ty; Nnbaj?« nino >pn oinnn .!?iaV>? ^ΊΝ "Rebbi Huna said: So is the Mishnah: "Between Akhzib and Euphrates, between Akhzib and Amanus." It was stated: What is the Land and what is outside the Land? From the slopes of Taurus Amanus inwards is the Land of Israel3, from Taurus Amanus to the outside is outside the Land. About the islands in the sea, one looks at them as if a string were drawn from Taurus Amanus to the brook of Egypt; from the string to the inside is the Land of Israel, from the string to the outside is 376 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR outside the Land. Rebbi Jehudah said, all that lies before the Land of Israel is like the Land of Israel since it is said (Num. 34:6): "The Western border shall be for you the Great Sea as border; that shall be for you the sea border." Assuming that a string were drawn from Cephalaria to the Ocean, from the brook of Egypt to the Ocean; inside the string is the Land of Israel, outside is outside the Land. 99 This and the following paragraph are from Sevi'it 6:1, Notes 90-95. ni*priv in oiois οίηηοίρ nv>an ιν^ψ:? o;»\y -15 Nopv .rom ϋκΊη niviij D^O π» .rn>\y Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, when the people of the Diaspora arrive at Taurus Amanus they will sing. What is the reason? (Cant. 4:8) "Sing from the top of Amanah". >ARI ΓΡΝ .YITO RMNN ΐΤΝΗ ΓΡΝ .!?ΪΘΨ> ΤΗ?Ό »JRI RW ΙΊΊΪΠ") !?ϊο~ψ> ^πη π*νη ·)Νβ >393 bin? τη»η ΙΝΰΐ .71^7(7 ΤΙΝ?> iniN νη?Γη ^ιη» τη^η -ιονϊ INQ .im?) - ϊνιφ γτ-p TW)> ,τη^ oip»a κη>ψ ΝΙΠ ) ίη^ϋ >:m im? Π-ΡΠ ΊΟΝΙ π>ηψ Dip)?? on 13 πηι /|Γΐ3 ιη3ψ ηηι t?\?3 bow ηη π*> -)rm > ·>φκ η>)?-ν ,η>ν ?ψ>1 πίΊ"ψν)?> ίη^^π κηιοα Vl^i^i niptn> η> 15 vwin? ow} ήκρρ >2*1 ijnv DW? .-»3V ^»ψ iorp w>pb 11 livrpw oyn Ν^Π ηη .nnni 100Some Tannaim state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) "The prairie, the Jordan, and the border." He who says the Jordan is HALAKHAH 8 377 outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): "The Jordan shall form its border Eastward." He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. 101"If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave." What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria102, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Johanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession103, removals104, and animal tithe105. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth. 100 A similar discussion in Babli between the Land of Israel and Bekhorot 55a. There, the first opinion Trans jordan. is declared to be that of R. Simeon ben 103 It is assumed that people do not Iohai, the second that of R. Jehudah keep documents for more than three ben Bathyra, and the third that of R. years. Therefore, a person who claims Mei'r. to have legal possession of real estate 101 Tosephta Ketubot 8:4, Baba by sale or inheritance, in the absence Qama 10:23, Babli Baba MezVa 22a. of a title can prove his claim by The argument there is that a change in showing undisturbed possession for the river bed is an act of God against three years. Such a claim cannot be which the property owners are brought simultaneously for property powerless; one may therefore assume inside and outside the Land. that the owners have given up hope to 104 The required consumption of recover their land; the part taken by Sabbatical produce which varies from the river now is ownerless. region to region, Sevi'it 9:2. 102 This is a very unlikely scenario. 105 This is the topic of Babli The Jordan is meandering only Bekhorot 55a. 378 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR Ίΐν'ψ Dl? "PN ·)ΓΙ3>ψ .ΓΠίΠ 11"? ΝΙΠ^ Ύΐν>ψ TÖ "ΟΝ>ψ Ttf)71 njonip wio οηρίΝ ons^ \yna> N'bi *m!? D>lpiN ΊΓΙ> Ν!?ψ "tW!? Wnfl? "ID^ ΠΊίΓΙΟ Νΐη ·)ΪΟ> Νΐ ίθΓΐψ:>> "ΐϋ'Γΐψ Niny :ρη» rwovj njann τ Halakhah 9: "The one for the fire has a measure," for it is biblical88. "The one for the Cohen has no measure," for it is rabbinical89. Should he give for the fire and not for the Cohen? That they should not say, we saw pure heave being burned106. Should he give for the Cohen and not for the fire? That they should not say, we saw impure heave being eaten107. Since he gives both of them, when he comes here108, he will ask. 106 The territory of the Land of is only rabbinical and it is impure only Israel during the First Commonwealth by rabbinical standards. which was not reoccupied by Jews 107 Since it is impure by actual during the Second Commonwealth is standards. pure by biblical standards, impure only 108 The two hallot are required rabbinically. One might have a point mainly to make sure that immigrants to considering that heave as pure. The the Holy Land inquire about the rules second hallah shows that the obligation to be followed in the Land. .ri£n"ym tC?) n>DNin nin_> 3\?ιο *οπ ΐ^ηττη in ίη But both are rabbinical109! It is better to increase the one to be eaten, not the one to be burned. 109 This now refers to the hallah of subject to a minimum amount but not Syria outside the Promised Land. Since the other. both hallot are rabbinical, why is one Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 10 379 .iflUö Γ)Ν*Ϊ> HNQIODW "ΟΤΙ Ν1Π ΊΟΙΠ ΠΙ ΠΤίΟ 110Düi> «m :> ΠΟ^ΓΙ τ s τ - ν τ τ : τν ·· · ' Halakhah 10: Even Rebbi Yose111 agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone's body. 110 Reading of the Rome ras., purification of the Cohen by immer- confirming the conjecture of most sion. He agrees with the anonymous commentators. Leyden and Venice: 'τ Mishnah 9 that persons whose impurity mr. is caused by their bodies are excluded 111 In Mishnah 8, he states that from eating even rabbinic hallah. purely rabbinic hallah does not need ni?iy n>tw itön mv >:n ->»n rons N>nw rmm ιγαν m nin τ r · ν ·· - : τ - τ τ · : · ν τ : : τ - m«N Nirjnö N-pyt ·>άί ION ,ΠΝΟΙ -τηία moio row ΠΝ»» ninaa τ : ιτ τ • : - τ r· : · - τ τ ·· τ ν : ν ν ν: ν τ ·· : τ ·· · τ : •in>i\yn -ιΐη DV i^iri^ .-rnisi -τη^ Rebbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra that it needs a plurality112. Rebbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101113. Rebbi Zeira said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: "It may be eaten at one table with a layman114". 112 The hallah from territories Mishnah 9, does not follow the rules of never possessed by the tribes of Israel heave explained in Terumot 9. He is or the returnees from Babylonia, if not specific about the amounts needed mixed with profane food, does not to annul the rabbinic hallah. create dema' if the profane is more 114 He disagrees with both R. than the hallah. This is accepted by the Abbahu and R. Jonah and holds that Babli for all heave of the Diaspora foreign hallah never creates dema' (.Bekhorot 21a). since mixing the hallah with profane Bostra is a town in Syria just outside food cannot usually be avoided if both the domain settled by the returnees are on the same table. from Babylonia; cf. Demay 2, Note 8. The name tradition is confirmed by 113 The rabbinic hallah, subject of all written sources but it seems to be 380 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR impossible. Either "R. Jonah" is Ze'ira cannot conduct a polemic against incorrect since R. Jonah was a student his opinion, or instead of "R. Zei'ra" one of R. Zeira's student R. Jeremiah and R. has to read "R. Yose". ΐίοψ Ί)ί πηψνρι njonn v^nae vn n^aay wjmi pnv "»ON rmn> 'i"! .N»3innri piiiri ·ρ·ΡΝ ίν» .iJiiN ι^νριι piiin •Q-1 .Vi•>-)£))? ΊΠΝ·) t7DiN ^ΊΝΪ? ^Π ΓΙΟΙΊ^ ^Γ) ΓΙ^Γ) ^ΝΙΏψ Οψ} ονη Kb'n >2-1 .-»rwi vyi-vri pi Tionnb Ν!?Ν wn Ν> !?Ϊ00Υ> ονη κι τ τ : · : 'τ τ - : · τ ν τ ·· : ·· : τ nim> nmnrf? ii?>aN ix nip-vb biν .*ti!?i nnmri^ wn N'b iwww τ τ · -: ' τ τ τ : · τ τ ν τ πίρ·ν> Γή-Γψν» 15 >t»N ">3117 (foi. 60b) ν "Tin? .wn ν'!? Rebbi Johanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora115 used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters116. Rebbi Zeira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For hallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates117. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave118, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical119. 115 In Babylonia. of the last generation of Galilean 116 Those who explain difficult Amorai'm. The Babli does not mention passages. Their identity is unknown. any change of practice. In Gen. rabba 51(12) a R. Hoshaia the 117 One may eat from what in the Interpreter and in 65(6) a Hizqiahu the Land would be tevel and declare the Interpreter are mentioned. The time of remainder as hallah or heave. This is the first cannot be determined; the quoted in the name of Samuel, as second must be later than R. Berekhiah practice, by the Babli (Bezah 9a, Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 10 381 Bekhorot 27a). 119 Even in the Land there is no 118 In Babylonia they only gave biblical obligation for any produce Great Heave for grain, wine, and olive other than grain, wine, and olive oil. oil, but no tithes. This is confirmed by Therefore, outside the Land there is no the fact that tithes from outside the reason to observe heaves and tithes Land (including Transjordan and Syria) even as a remembrance of the Land. are never mentioned in either Talmud. rp-u wta ^Nb ^ina riomjpi >pNa nbn >ari .^ίνγι irb> pa -an inb> pa lip-^ JiJii^"! It was stated120: "Concerning a Gentile's hallah in the Land and a Gentile's heave outside the Land, one informs him that it is unnecessary, he might eat it121, and it may be given to any Cohen, be he Fellow or vulgar." 120 The Babylonian version (To- estate by a Gentile in the Land does sephta 2:6, Babli Menahot 67a) reads: not free his property from the duties of Concerning a Gentile's hallah in the heave and tithes (even though this is Land and a Gentile's heave outside the not practice to be followed), a Gentile's Land, one informs him that he is not heave in the Land is heave. obligated, the hallah may be eaten by 121 Since he dedicated it in error, outsiders and the heave does not create the dedication is invalid and he may dema'. retract it. But if he insists on giving, it The Gentile is a "Friend of the must be given to a Cohen. One must Synagogue", as they are frequently assume that in this case also, the heave mentioned as donors in Synagogue is forbidden to a Cohen whose body is inscriptions in the Diaspora. Since R. a source of impurity. Meiir holds that possession of real 382 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR •)V7i» i^n p-jai rrniD^rn D^nnpn ιπ'3-^d!? to'N :» τυν» (foi. 59c) vvpn 'vniri nan.vy ιρψι «η γι'Ψνί·) πι^τη ο^η^ΐη jjrvp·) ii»D ">\?|> -pjiö nonj? >;pyn? ,ο>-ρ3>η3 ->x?iN rmn? rn .o>*VD>ari") .pipiN D>ÖDDI Mishnah 10: The following may be given to any Cohen122: herem- dedications123, firstlings124, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son125, the redemption value of a firstling donkey126, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach127, the first shearing128, oil to burn129, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits130. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits131. Heave vetch132 Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. 122 Irrespective of his level of follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin observance and knowledge of the Law. 29a). Some of the prescribed gifts are given 124 Ex. 13:1, Num. 18:15. to priests serving in the Temple; there, 125 Ex. 13:1,13, Num. 3:47, 18:15. they are under supervision and 126 Ex. 13:1,13. instruction. The other gifts are purely 127 Deut. 18:3. profane; they cannot be impaired by 128 Deut. 18:4. the impurity of the Cohen. 129 Impure heave olive oil. 123 Num. 18:14. According to most 130 Deut. 26:1-11. sources, this special dedication is not 131 Since they have to follow rules for the upkeep of the Temple but for of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1. the Cohanim [Sifra Behuqotay Pereq 132 This is animal fodder except in 12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin times of famine. 28a]. However, Babylonian practice .•)nb_io!? ίο« Υλη ρ^ύ ion :n> ηοϊη (foi. 60b) Nya rpp-p 'a-ι .irp-^D!? -pn^iD ηκψι -lövp« oniaran·) ni-ODan 133 tnnn ηι"ψ3 ib iön ,υοψρ ο>>?Ίτ1ηψ ")»2>? NTV^ ^P i>nDT v?a ""»οψ» 'V^N!? ΝΪΊ^Ψ inp D)?:^ minyi .innntf iris^ HALAKHAH 11 383 irm η>Γΐ?η·| (.ιρψη Νπτιψ w» πο^ ηηηφ .innnis η^ηπ inb^ ιγπν >an ΝΠΝ >a-> ππ^)? .ra^n-! ο^η^η-! o>vni? 'VHR n» Νΐη Ρ DID-!?? UO^ ^Ί ow? .•»οψη o>»-m IN υρψο Halakhah 11: Some of them134 are given to the people of the watch135; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings136 and First Fruits137 to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeira, from where that fterem-dedications123 are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) "Like the /?erem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen138." From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written "it shall become the property of the Cohen." (From where that herem-dedications are for the people of the watch?)139 But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) "He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach," should it not be for the people of the watch140? Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: (Lev. 27:28) "Every /zerem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal." Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch141, so herem- dedications are for the people of the watch! 133 Reading of the Rome ms. 135 The families of certified Leyden and Venice: O'mn "the money". Cohanim, admitted to service in the The latter reading cannot be correct Temple, were divided into 24 sections, since redemption of special dedications each of which was the watch serving in would have to refer to movables which the Temple for one week. Except for in the next paragraph are declared to the High Priest, no Cohen had the right be for any Cohen. to officiate in the Temple except 134 The items listed in the Mishnah. during holidays and the week assigned 384 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR to his watch. then in the second verse it should have 136 Unblemished firstlings which the same meaning. But since Deut. 18:3 are a sacrifice of which the owners clearly speaks about profane slaughter, receive no part. Blemished firstlings, away from the Temple, the meaning of unfit for sacrifice, may be given to any the word must include any Cohen. Cohen locally. The Babli (Arakhin 28b) disagrees 137 Have to be delivered to the and compares "Cohen" in this verse, Cohen in the Temple. about which it is written (v. 16) " If . . . 138 Since the chapter deals with a man declares holy for the Eternal" to transactions by the Temple treasurer, it the Cohen mentioned in the law about follows that a specially dedicated field the repentant offender in case the has to be given by the treasurer to the person he injured or defrauded has Cohen officiating in the Temple, i. e., died heirless, where it is written: (Num. to the watch of the week. The same 5:6) "The money must be returned to argument in Babli Sanhedrin 88a, the Eternal for the Cohen". The latter Arakhin 28a. money is distributed among the people 139 A dittography in both mss.; it of the current watch. must be an old error. 141 All most holy sacrifices are 140 If "Cohen" in the first verse either totally burned or eaten by means "Cohen of the current watch" Cohanim only. n'w riiyi?~)i?n pi nn wj ,ρ>\ρ>ο>>3π in ηπ^Ώ :n ow:i π»η rn >5 .irp-!?D> >W3N> ΓΙ^ΓΟ «IN ι»ψ» ony>N np /pioN' in^oi") * ^N ηψγ* .-»ρψη If this is the case, also movables142? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables143? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: (Deut. 18:1) "The gifts144 to the Eternal and His inheritance145 they shall eat." Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance. HALAKHAH11 385 142 The argument based on Lev. 143 Referring to Aerew-dedications. 27:28 cannot be true because herem- 144 Sacrifices. dedicated movables may be given to 145 The term n^ni is used only for any Cohen but are also called "most real estate; usually only for what was holy" in the verse. given the family under Joshua. .o'jwn-a .vni?»? ήηηκ!? wjp? riiimn nyn-)Nl cp">V>V riNvni >n>vy >η?η OWN) ηκχρη ΜΗΓ^Ψ in .v>ia?a ϊψν nirop cppari ODin οο!?π >Γΐψ }ηίϋ>?>ψ ·))?ψ Jiir) OWN·) ηίνη ^'NOI rmnn ·)» onion-! oniD^n-! niiiDan ο^ψι-ρ^ψ ID taw! ."»ρίνζΓ) n^ni rionjpi nionrin vipn??^ in ."p^ppöfl riiiiv-! "vo -»inq "»V? P7?1 piai "tan ^ji un ΤΡΨΝΊΠ πι^ίη ο?2π!?η") vV^n") ,πηηΝ mvpi o'jrmi 14624 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering147, reparation offering148, public well-being offerings149, purification offering of a bird150, the reparation offering for suspected guilt151, the log of oil of the skin-diseased152, the two breads153, the shew-bread154, the remainders of cereal offerings155, and the 'omer156. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings157, First Fruits158, what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazifs ram159, and the skins of sacrifices160. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, hallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach127, the first shearing161, robbery of the proselyte162, redemption of the firstborn163, redemption of the firstborn donkey163, herem-dedications, and fields of inheritance164. 386 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR 146 Tosephta Hallah 2:7-9, Babli 155 Lev. 2:3, 6:9-11. Baba Qama 110b, Hulin 132b, Sifry 156 Lev. 23:10-11. Qorah #119 ("12 in the Temple, 12 in 157 While these are sacrifices, after the countryside"), Midrash Tanhuma the blood was sprinkled on the altar Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1). wall the animal was eaten by the 147 Lev. 6:19. Cohen and his family anywhere in the 148 Lev. 7:7. city. 149 Lev. 23:19. Even though this 158 Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10. sacrifice is labelled "well-being 159 In fact, any part lifted for the offering", being a public offering it is Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is treated as most holy and must be eaten for the Cohen and his entire family, to by Cohanim in the Temple precinct. be eaten outside the Temple precinct. 150 While there is no separate verse Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11. commanding that the purification 160 Only of most holy sacrifices offering of a bird must be eaten, since (burnt, purification, and reparation the burnt offering of a bird is offerings); Lev. 7:8. consumed on the altar it follows that 161 Deut. 18:4. the purification offering must be eaten. 162 Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the 151 Lev 5:17-18. only person without legal heirs is the 152 Lev 14:10,21. The unused part proselyte who had no children after his of the oil becomes property of the conversion. Cohen. 163 Ex. 13. 153 Lev. 23:17. 164 Dedicated and not redeemed; 154 Lev. 24:9. Lev. 27:16-21. y>N ION rnv >51 IT rpriy-To rm> >2-1 .οηΐ3>ι:ι -ιυίκ DTP >2-1 .raio} -an!? ^N "Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits." Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since165 "Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill." HALAKHAH 11 387 165 Mishnah Bikkurim 3:12. The who have to eat them under the rules anonymous majority requires them to of simple sacrifices. be given to the people of the watch .ΠΝΡΙΟΙ iD'vyyn-^ -I»N ni>py >2-1 Μ n>riyiD ηι>ρν ·>ΆΊ rov -»»N >^0τ DTτN τ v^vι •· yν N>D n»3\τ : y- ·· τ Nsbnτ : :» · N»>τ n i!?>9•N >:·n -»O- Nτ ,ίτυρτρ >>?ΊΝ Nö\?> Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Aqiba166 follows his own opinion since "Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity"167. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say that he changed his method; there is a difference because a person usually does not make his animal's fodder impure168. 166 In the Mishnah. he holds that vetch in a regular year is 167 Mishnah Ma'aser Seni 2:4. only animal fodder, is never soaked, 168 Even if he agrees with the never prepared for impurity, and may House of Hillel that Second Tithe vetch be handled by any impure person (in a famine) must be cooked in purity, without consequences. .nNn-pt^N)? i^iay jinsj ID^V}«? .rp'pin nn N't» no r>an >21 Dwi rp^r? >3*·» oiajj-j uoiN >3*·» .ν^ψ-ρη nu >r»p>N .NtTnT N>n Ν*τττη N>n p->I • m: i t .τ"ητ Why did they not decree about vicia169? On their shoes it came out with them from Alexandria170. When did they decree about black vetch171? Rebbi Yose says, in a famine; Rebbi Hananiah in the name of Rebbi: In David's time. They said, both are the same. 169 Why was vetch not included 170 In Egypt it is simply a weed, originally in the duty to give heave and 171 Which is a kind of vicia·, cf. H. tithes from vegetables (cf. Ma'serot 5, L. Fleischer in Levy's Dictionary, vol. 2, Note 136)? p. 458b. 388 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR .13)3)? N'in -nn^a»? riton N>an yipj? «Μ ·Μ> mva (ω. 59d) οπο ν^Ί nNn-TipD^ö ·)ί}>τύ!?ο w>an ΠΝ>τρυ:?!?Ν airian >3?)? OD)? to^p rn^!? cmp orin^a w>an -in .iTjwa y-^ri ιψΝΐ H^a "i^po jn-) rnina^ Mishnah 11: Nittai from Tekoa brought hallot from Baithur172 but they did not accept from him173. The people of Alexandria brought their hallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them174. The people from Hyena Mountain175 brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) "The pilgrimage holiday of harvest176, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field." 172 This place has not been from outside the Land, the rabbinic convincingly identified. Possibly it is authorities of the day forbade any the place of origin of the family Ben Cohen to accept it. Bathyra, the leading rabbinical 174 Probably near the place n'sajf authorities in the region of Nisibis on (Neh. 11:34, IS. 13:18), West of the upper Tigris during the centuries of Jerusalem. the Mishnaic period. 175 Pentecost. 173 Since it is impure by coming H>in insn ipv .13)?)? toap N!?·) !?aa)? nniaa vbyj) üo'pif 13 fiJw» in>a >?a nisi V3a πι* nid ηκ .13)?>? i!?ap Ν'ϊη ι^ψ·) ·)>? in^a •ρυρ-ΐΝ .ηί-ιη!? *mn yap> Ν'!?ψ innnrioi o>\i>wa lop npa n?ipD Nnita D3ipn η>?Νψ >3?>? ,i3)?>? toap·; N>03N>? vrori wan .D^vyiT *vmaa ·· τ ! τ i - : Mishnah 12: Ben-Atitas176 brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them177. Joseph the Cohen178 brought his First Fruits as Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 12 389 wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household179 to make the second Passover in Jerusalem but they turned him back so as not to create a precedent for the future. Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them for they said, he who buys in Syria is like him who buys in the suburbs of Jerusalem180. 176 In the quote Babli Temura 21a 179 Women, slaves, and minor Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben children who are exempt from bringing Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben the Pesah sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar Adrat vol. 1, #331). if they were unable to bring it on the 177 In the Temple, since firstlings 14th of Nisan, since it is a positive can only be brought from places from obligation due at a fixed time. It seems which heave and tithes are obligatory that Joseph the Cohen was sufficiently [Sifry on Deut. 14:23 (#106); Babli known for the Temple authorities to be Bekhorot 53a]. afraid that his example would be 178 Α Tanna of the Temple period, imitated and in the end create a mentioned in Mishnah Miqwa'ot 10:1 baseless obligation. and several baraitot in the Babli. 180 Cf. Mishnah Demay 6:11. N3 im .i»ip)?> di"W0D1 Ήΐ* n»n '1*1 '-m :a» na^fi (foi. 60b) γινώο ποηη mnw bto' DM VN nbDWb -ΜΣΡΝ ΗΊΙΪ -α τ ·· τ τ τ : - I τ : : - τ : - mino πηηπ onoiN ιη> N'i>vy πν vn nfniiyb .nio?o\y τ τ τ · s ν τ : - I ·· τ : ν ν ν: ν ν njanri ΐί'ΝΊ οηρίΝ ιη> ν!?ψ riN ·ρκ rwpip»o> rnnr)n> .rmivyj 181ησ«ι :ny -ry nn>3n ΝΓΙ .ywb ^ΙΝΠ ρ Halakhah 12: Rebbi Hiyya182 stated: They decided about these and turned them back to their places of origin. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this is impossible. One may not eat it lest people say we saw impure heave being eaten. One may not burn it lest people say we saw pure 390 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR heave183 being burned. One may not return it to its place of origin lest people say we saw heave being exported from the Land. What to do? He lets it lie until Passover eve184 and burns it. 181 Reading of the Rome ms. impure as foreign produce, it did not Leyden and Venice: nosn, a text correct become impure in the Land and people by biblical but not rabbinical usage. will not know that it was imported. 182 This is R. Hiyya the elder. The 184 When all leavened matter, discussion is about the foreign hallah including heave, must be burned. which was rejected by the authorities Nobody will notice the special status of advising the Cohanira. this hallah. 183 While the heave/hallah is 1» Ν3Γ)? ·)3 "pypvy nis 'JVNI >?NI !W>>>?J H "pypw IEN VN1 .ro>£>?:i vty mn) n»p>>>j?>? Niin Ίρκψ teyi. rupritf?^ TV π1? -ipNb .^INI? ^H1? rmnn πονυρ ρΝ^ρψ -igto vvw 07* ·>ρη>ι Όΐηπ ρ -ιρίό ο>3?>ι οιηη ·)» γιη!?1) υιηη ρ ·)?>Ν i3j>> .ripflpn ι^η ΓΡΝ-))?!? wn η Ϊ οιηη ρ -ΙΚΡΓΙ Vr>3Ni rm> >51 "»PN Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I saw Simeon ben Cahana drinking heave wine in Acco185. When he said, this was brought from Cilicia, they decided about him and he drank it on a ship. Would not people say that one imports heave from outside into the Land? Let us say, he did not go into Acco186. Where did he drink it? Outside the string187 or inside? Let us say, outside the string188. Rebbi Jonah said, even if you say inside the string, they did not worry about bad appearances on a ship. 185 This in itself is problematic rabbinical authorities of Acco must since part of Acco belongs to the Land, have been asked about the situation. It part to Syria (cf. Sevi'it 6:1, Note 30). is reasonable to assume that the 186 Since "they decided", the question was asked before the wine HALAKHAH 12 391 was unloaded. 188 This is unlikely since the ship 187 The imaginary line defining the would have had to leave port and go territorial waters of the Land; cf. far out to sea. above, Note 99. lipo»? τηο ΪΟΓ)? is "pypw >3*1 ioq? ·)ΐ "pyrpw rvn >TIÖ>N im ."Ρψ >*π>:> "τη >π»Ν in ty ^i!? nir) ·)? w >ΓΙΝ V^ ION ΟΙ!?? >> >ri>ri Ν!? *τπ wo ^ "ίΟ 'ίΠ HVSV ΓΡ> 1ÖN1 im OÜ'J? *ΤΠ >> ΊΪ2Η tUlO N^i» N^m νπ i? "TiyJiö vn -αϊ vö >ιίν οι!?:? '!? >jvri νηψ Ν^ "M? rn'W ^Ί .ϊοιϊ"? When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. 189Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Haggai was supporting Rebbi Zeira. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeira particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator. 189 From Demay 3:2, Notes 52-56. thing taken is less than the smallest Taking somebody else's property is not coin in circulation. a crime as long as the value of the 392 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR od» riNnfpp?!?^)? ·|η>Γΐί·>η win η^ηΐίΡ?^ >V>?N in>!?y NUI N>B ΓΙ>Ν ΝΙΠ -riy N>n NII-I n>>n >3I ΝΊΗ NN NI >21 .onnriO"! "The people of Alexandria brought their hallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them." Rebbi Abba Mari said, is that not also from Rebbi Hiyya the elder190? He holds that they decided about these and ordered them to be returned. 190 Does R. Hiyya (Note 182) simply the case of Nittai or does he express a state a ruling of the Sages of the day in generally valid halakhic statement? liar) u'iri .idp N>! Qfip o^niDra win in >vy?N •ΡΚ NJVIJPG >3>3 >31 D\I>3 N^>N >1"! ·1>Ρ\Μ0 D>-»133 ")>N>2>? 1>N ηρψρ o>*yD>a :ητ >3rin·! in? ^W» "|>ι?ψ2 onraa pvyiy njiwon ny\y>? 1\?ί?>ψ iri?»3i ,N>in -inii? Tin>ri Ν>ι»ψ p>3>? ·)Ν>ιη^ .p rop n3W»o nywn ·)ορ> ΗΪ ikd] .·)? njjp ^ "The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them." 191There192, we have stated: "One does not bring First Fruits as drinks." Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, "one does not turn First Fruits into drinks" even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: "If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), 'bring!'". That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose193. 191 The discussion is not about the Joseph the Cohen who brought his First quote from the Mishnah but about Fruits as wine and oil. HALAKHAH 12 393 192 Terumot 11:3. The text of the in the discussion here. discussion is also from there, Notes 62- 193 But fruits other than grapes and 65. The Mishnah states: "One does not olives may not be made into juice bring First Fruits as drinks except for under any circumstances. grapes and olives." This text is implied •PWN-IN NP? N\INY NWNN >3RI .NWN INPS ΊΟΝΙ IN)?:? N^NI nwiy n\I»NN -ΙΟΊΝ 'pv ·>3Ί ,-PNO ^-I nil o^n^ n^ap ^D"! no^!? "pyovj ."lWN-ιη löib ΪΙ?^^ VW J1?^} i^flif wv no? noa nwiy n^Ni onnifb nb>?\? "pwin no? nwiy ηψΝη iisiN π» n\y isn ON .NIIN mi? nw VY>N ΤΝΟ >a-n novo no • τ - ν τ · τ ·· ν : τ - - ·• •pypw nnyv? no ρψ"!?? RIIIN ιτ>Ι> η'ψ ΦΚ >ον >217 noyp >Ι~! ION ^ 1>??1 .ΗΨΝ Ν'ΊΗ \Y>N •mn yi^ ΝΒψ ο^υο "ΐη^ηψ N>n niin IONI ^Wl N>in ON N>:P N> τύ!?η >ηψ> oiip NO^O IP •'"φη INI ON ")3>3Γ1 Ρ Ν'!?Ί .ΠαίΠ "ll^n Ν)3ψ o»iw? ΊΙ'ΐηψ N>n .nnin -mn yij?? nm ο»ιυρ "αιηψ wn PO1«^ Does it follow him who says the Pesah of women is voluntary194? It was stated195: "A woman may make the First Pesah by herself and the Second joining others196, the words of Rebbi Mei'r. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesah by herself, even on the Sabbath197, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesah joining others but does not make the Second." What is the reason of Rebbi Meir? {Ex. 12:3) "Every man a sheep for the family," if they want "a sheep for the house198." What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, "Every man a sheep for the family," a fortiori "a sheep for the house." What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? "Every man", not woman. How do the rabbis uphold "man"? A man, not a 394 HALLAH CHAPTER FOUR minor199. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation200. Did we not hold201: "Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?" It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state202: "If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed"? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. 194 That they refused to let Joseph disagreement or special situation. the Cohen bring the Second Pesah. for 200 If a renowned authority does his entire family. The same discussion something, everybody will rush to in Pesahim 8:1 (fol. 35d), Qiddusin 1:8 emulate him and in the next generation (fol. 61c); cf. Babli Pesahim 93a, it will already be a common standard Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba 3, Mekhilta R. and acquire the status of "practice of Simeon bar Iohai p. 10. the forefathers from time immemorial". 195 Tosephta Pesahim 8:10. There, Even R. Yose will agree that in such a the opinion of R. Me'ir is attributed to situation one should not allow a public R. Jehudah. display of special devotion. The Babli 196 Joining a group of men who are Pesahim 93a quotes a Tosephta which biblically obligated; cf. Note 177. includes women impure because of 197 If the 14th of Iyar is a Sabbath, childbirth in the list of persons the sacrifice has precedence over the obligated to observe the Second Pesah. Sabbath. 201 Mishnah Menahot 10:6, Babli 198 Everywhere in rabbinic Hebrew, Menahot 69a, speaking of First Fruits. "house" of a family is the wife. There seems to be no reason why the 199 In the Tosephta (Note 195) the people from Hyena Mountain should reason they turned back Joseph the not be permitted to bring their first Cohen was not that he brought his wife fruits early. The answer is, they would and children but his minor grandson. have been permitted had some of them In that version, there is no place for come as individuals. But that the Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 12 395 people from an entire region should 202 Mishnah Temurah 3:5. Why come publicly to do what is only should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to tolerated is unacceptable. bring his firstlings? n^m^ VNnjp VN ·)3>3ΓΙ Ί»ΓΙ .I·»?)? i^p") N>oaN« vyD>a win ήορ-ΐΝ m»iDif3 Dn^? ivywin 'in .v-ns^a win^ Λίζφ Μζφ ^ΠΒ Vfl^Dp in η« ·)? J^N ~>E>N ON mnntfa ΓΟ>Ν njpnri "Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them." There203, we have stated: "One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land." Should they be brought as First Fruits? Rebbi Hoshaia said, First Fruits are the responsibility of the owners, heave is not the responsibility of the owners. If you would say so, they would run after it there204. 203 Sevi'it 6:6. The discussion is reasonable; there is no reason to there, Note 152. prohibit First Fruits from Syria which 204 Therefore, the rabbinic must personally be delivered to the prohibition for heave from Syria is Temple.