meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Challah/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Challah
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה חלה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Challah
  
  Introduction
  
  General Overview
  Structure and Organization
  Summary of Legal Topics, Technical Terms, and Concepts
  Relationship to Biblical Law
  Hallah is the part of the dough that is separated and given to the priests. It is referred to in Numbers 15: 18-21:
  When you enter the land to which I am taking you and you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set aside some as a gift to the Lord, as the first yield of your baking. You shall set aside a loaf as a gift; you shall set it aside as a gift like the gift from the threshing floor. You shall make a gift to the Lord from the first yield of your baking, throughout the ages.
  Nehemiah 10:38 and Ezekiel 44:30 describe this gift was given to the priests, and the rabbinic halakhah follows this assumption.
  According to the rabbis, “the first yield of your baking” means that you should give this gift, called hallah, from the dough before it is baked, at the time when it is being kneaded in the kneading trough. However, they also held that if one did not separate hallah while the dough was being kneaded, he could still do so later after the bread was already baked. 
  Tractate Hallah will deal with issues such as: from what types of grain must hallah be separated? How much hallah must be given? Does one have to give hallah from even small quantities of baked bread? These and other issues will be dealt with throughout this short tractate. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches what species counts as grain and is therefore subject to all of the laws associated with grain.
  Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye.  There are only five species of grain that count as grain in Jewish law-- wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. If bread is made from some other type of grain, it doesn’t count as grain. For instance, before eating other types of grain, one would not say “hamotzi” or “mezonot” but rather “haadamah.” Tomorrow we will learn other consequences of the fact that these five are considered grain and others are not.
  These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity].  If one makes dough from a combination of these types of grain, and each type of grain is not of a sufficient quantity to make the dough liable for hallah, the different grains can join together to make the dough liable. In later chapters we will see that the minimum measure of dough to be liable in hallah is 1 ¼ kav. So if there is a mixture of these grains, as long as there is a total of 1 ¼, then hallah must be separated.
  And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer.  Until the omer begins to be sacrificed, which is on the second day of Pesah, it is forbidden to eat of the new grain harvest (Leviticus 23:10-14). It is also forbidden to begin to harvest until the omer is first harvested. Only these five grains are subject to these laws all other grains may be harvested whenever a person wants.
  If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.  The mishnah now clarifies what counts as the new harvest in terms of the Omer. If the grain had taken root before Pesah (the omer), then one may harvest it after the omer has begun. But if it had not yet taken root, he would have to wait an entire year, until the next omer, in order to harvest it.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with the consequences of the fact that only these five species are considered to be grain.
  If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation.  Matzah must be made of one of these species of grain in order for one to fulfill the obligation of eating matzah on Pesah.
  [If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet.  The opposite also holds true hametz can only be from these five species. One who eats one of these five species when they are hametz has transgressed Pesah. Other species are completely permitted on Pesah, save for the fact that Ashkenazim customarily do not eat rice.
  If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah.  If one of these grains, when leavened, becomes mixed with other species, it must be removed from one’s possession before Pesah.
  If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (, he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only.  In this section Rabbi Meir and the sages debate the meaning of the word “tevuah” which I usually translate as produce. All agree that if one vows to abstain from bread, he means these five species. The question is: what if he vows to abstain from tevuah? According to Rabbi Meir, tevuah refers to these five species. Thus in such a case he may not have these five species, but he may have beans. The sages say that “dagan” is the word used to refer to these five species. If one vows not to have “dagan” then he can’t have these species, but if he vows not to have tevuah, he can’t have beans or other types of produce either. Tevuah is a more inclusive term.
  They are subject to hallah and tithes.  As stated above, these five species are liable for hallah. They are also liable for tithes. This note is included at the end of today’s mishnah because tomorrow we will learn what things are exempt from tithes.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches that although some things are exempt from tithes, they may still be liable for hallah.
  The following are subject to hallah, but exempt from tithes: gleanings, from the forgotten sheaf, from peah or from ownerless produce and the first tithe from which terumah has been removed, second tithe and consecrated [produce] which has been redeemed, and that which remains over from the omer, and grain which has not grown one-third [ripe]. Rabbi Eliezer says: grain which has not grown one-third [ripe] is exempt [also] from hallah. Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah and ownerless produce are all exempt from tithes because they are all, in a sense, already given to someone else. If the Levite is poor he can just come and take them for himself. Anyone can take the ownerless produce. Therefore, one need not give tithes from these things. However, all of them are liable for hallah. First tithe from which terumah has been removed is not liable for tithes (it already is tithe!) but the Levite must separate hallah and give it to the priest. Second tithe and consecrated produce are likewise, obviously not subject to tithes, but if they are grain, one must separate hallah before eating them. When they would harvest the omer, beginning on the second night of Pesah, they would harvest three seahs worth of barley. However, they would only use the choicest tenth of a seah. The rest they would redeem in order to make it hullin and then it could be eaten by anyone. This flour is exempt from tithes, because at the time its processing was done (when it was harvested and made it into a pile) it was holy and exempt from tithes. However, liability for hallah is determined by when it was made into dough, and by the time the omer flour was made into dough, it was already hullin, non-sacred. In Maasrot 1:3 we learned that grain that had not yet become one third ripe is exempt from tithes. However, according to the sages, it is still liable for hallah. This is because dough made from this unripe grain is still called bread (I can’t imagine it would have tasted very good, but who knows?). Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that such dough is also exempt from hallah. Numbers 15:20 calls hallah “terumah.” Since terumah is not separated from produce that is not one third ripe, so too hallah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is the opposite of yesterday’s mishnah. Today, the mishnah lists things that are, for various reasons, liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah.
  The following are liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah: rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse, and less than five-fourths [of a kab] of [the five kinds of] grain, sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan and medumma are exempt from hallah. Rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse: These are all liable for tithes but exempt from hallah because only the five grains are liable for hallah. Less than five-quarters [of a kav] of [the five kinds of] grain: This small amount is not liable for hallah because it is too small of an amount. We shall return to this issue in a later chapter. Sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan: These are all exempt from hallah because they are not baked in an oven. Only things baked in an oven are liable for hallah. Medumma: Medumma is a mixture of hullin and terumah in which there is not sufficient hullin to nullify the terumah (there are less than 100 parts hullin for each part terumah). This mixture is treated like terumah and can only be eaten by a priest. It is exempt from hallah because it already has terumah in it, and as we have seen hallah is called terumah by the Torah. The rabbis ruled that one doesn’t separate terumah/hallah from something that is already, even partially, terumah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to discuss sponge-cakes, which we learned yesterday were not liable for hallah. Sponge-cakes were made from watery dough and they were cooked either just in the sun, or with a little heat in a pan over an open flame. Since they are not made like bread, they are exempt from hallah.
  Dough which was originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, and in the end is [cooked as] sponge-cake, is exempt from hallah.  If the flour and water mixture was originally put together in order to be made into sponge-cakes and in the end it was cooked to be sponge-cakes in the way that sponge-cakes are cooked, then it is exempt from hallah.
  [If it was] originally [ordinary] dough, but in the end [cooked as] sponge-cakes, [or if it was] originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, but finally [cooked as ordinary] dough, it is subject to hallah.  However, if it was originally intended to be ordinary dough, dough whose consistency is thicker than that used for sponge-cakes, and then he cooked it in the way that one cooks sponge-cakes, in a pan or in water or with some other ingredients, then it is liable for hallah. So too, if it began as watery sponge-cake dough, and then he baked it in a regular oven, it is also liable for hallah. As long as it either began or ended up like regular dough, hallah must be taken out.
  Similarly, bread crumbs ( are subject [to hallah].  Kenuvkaot come from bread and then are boiled in small pieces in a pan to be food for small children. They are liable for hallah because they began as bread, even though they were eventually cooked in a manner similar to sponge-cakes.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with other various types of dough and whether it is exempt from hallah.
  Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah].  Meisah is flour into which boiling water has been mixed. It seems that Bet Hillel makes him liable because the water is put into the flour, just as water is normally poured into flour to make it into dough. In contrast, Bet Shammai makes him exempt.
  Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts.  Halitah is like meisah, except in this case the flour is poured into the water. Hence, Bet Hillel exempts him. It is not clear why Bet Shammai makes liable. We should note that according to both talmudim, section one disagrees with section two, and the two come from different sources. If so, there is no halakhic difference between meisah and halita. According to the first opinion, Bet Shammai exempts both from hallah, and Bet Hillel makes them both liable. According to the second opinion, Bet Shammai makes both liable for hallah, and Bet Hillel makes them both exempt. This would imply that Rabbi Judah Hanasi took two different sources that contradict each other and pasted them together in the Mishnah. It is unclear why he would do such a thing.
  The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].  The thanksgiving offering is accompanied by three loaves of matzah (Leviticus 7:12).  When the Nazirite completes his naziriteship he brings loaves and wafers (Numbers 6:15). If a person makes these for himself, and from the time he begins to make the dough he intends to use them for these holy purposes, then they are sanctified from the beginning of their existence. One does not have to separate hallah from sanctified food. However, if he makes them to sell them at market, then he must separate hallah from them because they were not sanctified from the outset. They only become sanctified when a person buys them with the intention of using them in the Temple.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with dough prepared by a baker and whether it is liable for hallah.
  A baker who made dough to divide it up into pieces, it is subject to hallah.  The baker makes a large batch of dough which he intends to divide up into small pieces, each of which contain less than the measure necessary for dough to be liable for hallah (five quarters of a kav). He will sell the smaller pieces of dough to individuals, who will let it rise and then bake it themselves. This dough is liable for hallah, because if he can’t find people to buy it, he will bake it all himself. Potentially, this is going to end up as one person’s dough.
  Women who gave [flour] to a baker to make for them dough, if there is not in any one of them a [minimum] measure, it is exempt from hallah.  On the other hand, if a few women give flour to a baker, and each woman gives less than is necessary for dough to be liable for hallah, then the dough is exempt from hallah. The difference between this case and the case in section one is that here the small pieces of dough are already owned by different individuals. This mishnah teaches that dough owned by different people does not join together to become liable for hallah.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with dough made for the consumption of dogs. The mishnah deals with whether this dough is treated like human food, which carries with it a number of implications.
  Dough for dogs:If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah.  If this dough was prepared well so that the shepherds could also eat it, then it is treated as human food, even though it was made mostly for animals. This has implications in five areas of halakhah: a) it is subject to hallah: Only human food is subject to hallah. b) and one may use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf: An eruv or a shittuf is a common meal which allows one to carry from a house into a courtyard or from a courtyard into the adjoining alleyway on Shabbat. An eruv can also allow one to travel further than the Shabbat limit, which is 2000 cubits from the border of the city (see the introduction to Eruvin for more information). If this dough is eaten by shepherds then it counts as potential human food and can be used to make an eruv or shittuf. c) and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it: Before eating this dough one would say “hamotzi” and afterwards “birkat hamazon.” In addition, if eating in a group of at least three, the invitation to recite birkat hamazon would be recited. d) and it may be made on a festival: only human food can be made on Yom Tov, a festival. e) and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah: if it was not leavened, then one could use it for matzah on Pesah.
  But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah.  If it was made in a poor fashion, so that the shepherds would not want to eat it, then it doesn’t count as food and none of the above halakhot apply.
  In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.  Even if it was made in a poor fashion, shepherds might still come to eat it occasionally. Therefore, in any case, the dough is subject to the rules of food impurity. Only food that is eaten solely by animals, for instance straw, would not be subject to these rules.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah lists similarities between the rules concerning terumah with those concerning hallah.
  In the case of hallah and terumah:One is liable for death on account of [having eaten] them death [intentionally], or to [repay] an added fifth [if unwittingly];  The penalty for a non-priest who intentionally eats terumah or hallah is “death by the hands of heaven.” This is derived from Leviticus 22:9-10. If one unintentionally eats terumah or hallah he must repay the value of that which he ate, plus an added fifth (see Leviticus 22:14).
  They are forbidden to non-priests;  Only priests may eat terumah and hallah.
  They are the property of the priest;  The priest can sell the terumah or the hallah to someone else (assumedly another priest) and then he can use the proceeds to buy anything he wants. In other words, these are not like sacrifices, which the priest cannot sell and keep the proceeds for himself.
  They are nullified [in a mixture of] one-hundred-and-one [parts, the rest being non-sacred dough or produce];  If one hundred parts hullin (non-sacred produce) are mixed in with one part terumah or hallah, then one can take out one part, give it to the priest as terumah/hallah and the rest reverts to being hullin. If there is less than a 100-1 ratio of hullin to terumah/hallah, then the whole mixture must be treated like terumah and only priests can eat it.
  They require washing of one’s hands;  Before one touches terumah or hallah, one must wash one’s hands to ritually cleanse them. This is true even if one was not known to be ritually impure.
  And [waiting until] the setting of the sun [prior to eating them];  An impure person who has been to the mikveh during the day to cleanse him/herself, must wait until the sun sets in order to eat terumah (Leviticus 22:7).
  They may not be separated from pure [stuff] for impure;  If one has some pure produce/dough and some impure produce/dough, he cannot separate terumah or hallah from the pure in order to exempt the impure, even though this might seem beneficial to a priest, who would surely prefer the pure terumah/hallah (which he can eat the impure terumah/hallah cannot be eaten). See Terumot 2:1 for more information
  But rather from that which is close,  When one comes to separate terumah or hallah, he must take the terumah and hallah out of produce or dough that is close by. Thus if I have some dough here in Modiin, I can’t take hallah out of dough that I also have in Jerusalem, but I could take hallah out of dough that I have in my second kitchen. I don’t have a second kitchen, but if I did, I could make bread in both kitchens and take hallah out of one batch of dough and exempt the other batch. Probably not a good enough reason to get a second kitchen.
  And from that [in a] finished [state].  Terumah is separated from produce whose processing has been completed, and hallah is separated from dough, and not from flour.
  If one said: “All my threshing-floor is terumah, or all my dough is hallah,” he has not said anything, unless he has left some over.  It is impossible to make all of one’s grain at the threshing floor or all of one’s dough into terumah or hallah. Numbers 15:21 says, “From the first of one’s dough you shall give terumah, for all your generations.” The rabbis make a midrash on the word “from the first” and not all of the first, meaning not all of one’s produce or dough can become terumah/hallah.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with whether one is liable to separate hallah from produce that is grown outside the land of Israel.
  Produce [grown] outside the land [of Israel] that came into the land is subject to Hallah.  Outside the land of Israel, one is not obligated to separate hallah from dough. However, if the produce, in this case grain, was grown outside the land, and then brought in, it is liable for hallah, because the flour was mixed with water inside the land of Israel. As we have seen, when it comes to separating hallah, the critical moment is when the flour is mixed with dough.
  [If it] went out from here to there: Rabbi Eliezer makes it liable, But Rabbi Akiva makes it exempt.  If the produce was grown in the land of Israel, but then brought outside the land and there it was made into dough, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is still liable for hallah. This seems to be based on a midrash of Numbers 15:19 which states, “from the bread of the land” and bread made from the produce of the land is still “bread of the land” no matter where it is made. Rabbi Akiva says he is exempt, because the very same verse states, “When you enter the land to which I am taking you…” The implication is that when you are not in the land, you are not liable for hallah.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Earth from outside the land has come to the land [of Israel] in a boat, [the produce grown in it] is subject to tithes and to the [law relating to] the seventh year.  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if grain from outside the land of Israel is brought into Israel, it becomes liable for hallah. Today’s mishnah teaches that if a boat comes close to the land of Israel and there is produce in the boat, the produce is liable for tithes and it is subject to the laws governing produce grown in the seventh year, just as if the produce was grown in Israel itself.
  Rabbi Judah: when does this apply? When the boat touches [the ground].  Rabbi Judah says that this applies only if the boat is actually touching the ground. This is interpreted as meaning that the boat is ten handbreadths from the bottom of the sea. That makes it as if the earth on the boat is attached to the ground. But if the boat was floating high on the water, its produce is exempt from these laws.
  Dough which has been kneaded with fruit-juice is subject to hallah, and may be eaten with unclean hands.  Dough which is kneaded with fruit-juice instead of water is still liable for hallah. However, it cannot receive impurity because fruit-juice is not one of the seven liquids that makes produce susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the hallah separated from this dough can be eaten with unclean hands, without fear that the hallah will become impure and forbidden for consumption.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with two topics.
  The first is separating hallah while naked perhaps there was a nudist colony?
  The second is how to make dough while ritually impure. This is a problem because ritually impure hallah cannot be eaten it must be burned.
  A woman may sit and separate hallah while she is naked, since she can cover herself  but a man may not.  A person’s whose nakedness, meaning genitalia, are showing cannot separate hallah from dough because doing so requires the recitation of a blessing, and it is forbidden to recite a blessing while naked. A woman can separate hallah while sitting naked because she can hide her nakedness with her legs. However a man cannot hide his nakedness while sitting, therefore he cannot separate hallah. I realize that some of you men reading this may be saying to yourselves, “I can cover my nakedness while I sit.” I implore you don’t try this at home!
  If one is not able to make one's dough in cleanness he should make it [in separate] kavs,   rather than make it in uncleanness.  Dough is liable for hallah only if there are 1 ¼ kavs. One who kneads a lesser quantity is not liable to separate hallah. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, if one is unable to separate dough in a state of purity, she should knead it in quantities smaller than 1 ¼ kavs, and this way she can avoid becoming liable for hallah.
  But Rabbi Akiva says: let him make it in uncleanness rather than make it [in separate] kavs, just as he calls the clean, so too he calls the unclean; this one he cals hallah with the Name, and the other he also calls hallah with the Name, but [separate] kavs have no portion [devoted] to the Name.  Rabbi Akiva says that it would be better for him to knead the dough in a state of impurity, rather than making it in separate kavs. For when he kneads it in impurity, he will separate hallah and recite a blessing over it using God’s name, even though the hallah is impure. Rabbi Akiva says that the most important thing is that the blessing is recited because this is what sanctifies God’s name. In contrast, when he kneads each kav separately in order to avoid separating hallah, no blessing is recited and God’s name is not sancitified. I find this debate fascinating. According to Rabbi Akiva, God’s name is sanctified, even over impure hallah. It seems that sanctity and impurity are not polar opposites, at least not in this case. In contrast, the first opinion wishes to avoid a situation where one will be forced to create impure hallah. While one might still have to recite a blessing over this hallah, it seems to be more problematic in the eyes of the author of this section.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the topic of how kavs of dough that were kneaded separately can join to constitute the necessary amount of dough to be liable for hallah.
  One who makes his dough [in separate] kavs, and they touch one another, they are exempt from hallah unless they stick together.  If one makes separate batches of dough and they merely touch one another, they are still exempt from hallah. Touching does not turn them into one batch. However, if they stick together, then they are considered one batch and they are liable for hallah. They are considered to be “sticking together” if when they are pulled apart, some of one batch sticks to the other batch.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: also if one takes out [loaves from an oven] and puts [them] into a basket, the basket joins them together for [the purposes of] hallah.  If one takes loaves out of an oven and puts them all into one basket, the loaves, which were not originally liable for hallah, join together to constitute an amount liable for hallah. Even though hallah is usually taken out from the dough, according to Rabbi Eliezer they can still be joined together by the basket even after they have been baked.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with someone who separates his hallah before the flour has been mixed with water to become dough. The Torah says that you are supposed to give the first of “your dough” to the kohen, not the flour before it becomes dough. Our mishnah rules that the flour that he calls “hallah” does not actually become hallah.
  If one separates his hallah [while it is still] flour, it is not hallah, and in the hand of a priest it is considered stolen property.  As stated above, if he separates his hallah before he mixes it with water to become dough, that which he calls hallah does not have the status of hallah. Therefore, if he gives it to a kohen, the kohen must return it to him. If the kohen does not return it, it is as it is a stolen thing in the kohen’s possession.
  The dough is still subject to hallah;  The dough made from the remaining flour is still subject to hallah, because the hallah that he did take out does not count.
  And the flour, if there is the minimum quantity, it [also is] subject to hallah.  The flour that he took out and called hallah, if there is a minimum amount (1 ¼ kavs) then hallah must be taken from this dough as well.
  And it is prohibited to non-priests, the words of Rabbi Joshua.  Despite the fact that this flour does not have the status of hallah, Rabbi Joshua says that it is prohibited to non-priests. According to Rabbi Joshua, since he called it hallah, it can only be eaten by priests, even though it is not actually hallah.
  They said to him: It happened that a non-priest sage seized it [for himself].  The other sages respond that it happened that a non-priest who was a sage grabbed a loaf made from this flour in order to eat it. This proves, to the sages, that this flour is permitted to non-priests.
  He said to them: He did something damaging to himself, but he benefited others.  Rabbi Joshua responds that what the sage did was indeed forbidden. But in a roundabout way, he helped others. Other non-priests will now eat this bread thinking that it is permitted to them as well. Since they don’t know that it is actually prohibited, they are not considered to be sinning. So it turns out that this sage knowingly erred, in order to aid others. While this is a strange concept, we should remember that the only reason that Rabbi Joshua considers this bread prohibited to non-priests is that he called it hallah it is not actually hallah. The transgression of a non-priest eating it is certainly not from the Torah.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches the basic law that we have encountered several times 1 ¼ kav of flour is liable for hallah. If there is less, one need not remove hallah.
  Five-fourths [of a kav] of flour are subject to hallah.  This is the basic law, to which we have made reference on several occasions.
  If their leaven, their light bran and their coarse bran [make up the] five-fourths, they are subject.  When measuring the flour, one includes the leaven (the starter dough used to leaven the bread), and all of the bran.
  If their coarse bran had been removed from them and returned to them, they are exempt.  If the coarse bran was removed, which is typical in the processing of better quality flour, and then it was added back in, the flour is not subject to hallah. This is because putting back the course bran is unusual.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches the minimum measure of hallah that a person must separate from his dough. We should note that this measure is not set by the Torah. According to Torah law, even the tiniest amount would exempt the dough. However, as we saw in the case of terumah, the rabbis set a minimum amount. The fact that this amount is not considered to be from the Torah, also allowed them the ability to make the amount variable depending on the circumstance.
  The [minimum] measure of hallah is one twenty-fourth [part of the dough].  In general, one must give 1/24 of one’s dough to a kohen as hallah.
  If he makes dough for himself, or if he makes it for his son’s [wedding] banquet, it is one twenty-fourth.  The above is true for a person who makes dough for own personal use, or for use at a family celebration.
  If a baker makes to sell in the market, and so [also] if a woman makes to sell in the market, it is one forty-eighth.  The rabbis were lenient when it came to a baker or a woman making dough to sell in the market. Since these people tend to make larger quantities, even 1/48 will be sufficient enough to give something substantial to the kohen.
  If dough is made unclean either unwittingly or by an unforeseeable circumstance, it is one forty-eighth.  When one has dough that was made impure either unwittingly, or by some unforeseeable circumstance, s/he only has to give 1/48 as hallah. Since this hallah won’t be able to be eaten anyway, only a minimal measurement is required.
  If it was made unclean intentionally, it is one twenty-fourth, in order that a sinner should not profit.  However, if he intentionally makes it unclean in order to get away with giving less hallah, he must give the larger measure. Clearly, we don’t want a person to make his dough unclean so that he can get away with giving less hallah. Remember, the part of the dough that is not hallah can still be eaten, so if he were to get away with giving the lesser amount, a “sinner would profit.”
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer finds a way to give hallah from pure dough in order to exempt a separate batch of impure dough.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: Hallah may be taken from [dough] that is clean, [in order to exempt] that which is unclean. How [may this be done]? [If one has] clean dough and unclean dough, he takes sufficient hallah out of the [clean] dough whose hallah has not yet been taken, and puts [dough] less than the size of an egg in the middle, in order that he may take off [the hallah] from what is close together.  The problem in this situation is how to join the two batches of dough together so that one hallah can be taken from both, without causing the pure dough to become impure. He cannot just take from one to exempt the other because hallah taken from one batch of dough cannot exempt a separate batch of dough. This is how Rabbi Eliezer suggests it may be done. First, he takes a sufficient measure of hallah from the clean dough in order to exempt both batches of dough. He does this at the outset lest the clean dough is made impure at least he now has enough clean hallah to exempt both batches. Then in between the two batches he puts an amount of dough less than the size of an egg. This serves to attach the two batches, but because it is less than an egg’s worth in volume, the impurity is not conveyed across to the pure dough. Now, the hallah that he took from the pure dough counts to exempt the impure dough.
  But the sages prohibit.  The other rabbis prohibit one from separating hallah from pure dough for impure dough, lest he unwittingly causes the pure dough to become impure. Rather he should take pure hallah from the pure dough and impure hallah from the impure dough.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the question of when one can eat dough without separating hallah.
  One may snack from dough, until it is rolled, in [the case of] wheat [flour], or before it is made into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour].  A person can eat a piece of dough as a snack even though hallah has not yet been removed from it. This is true as long as long as it has not yet been rolled, if the flour was made of wheat, or made into a solid mass, in the case of barley. Wheat flour is finer and therefore, it is considered dough once it has been kneaded well and rolled out to make loaves of bread (flat like pita). Barley flour is coarser and therefore it is considered dough once she gets it to stick together into a lump. This rule should be familiar if you have already learned Tractate Maasrot. There we learned that in general one can snack from produce before its processing has been completed.
  [Once] one has rolled it [in the case of] wheat [flour], or made it into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour], one who eats it is liable for death [at the hands of heaven].  After it has been either rolled or made into a solid mass, a non-priest who eats it is liable for “death at the hands of heaven.” This is the same penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah, and as we have seen, the laws of hallah are frequently derived from the laws of terumah, because the Torah calls both “holy.”
  As soon as she puts in the water she should lift out the hallah, provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.  The way to avoid this severe penalty is for the woman to remove the hallah from the dough as soon as she puts water in the flour. Even though one could snack on it until it is rolled or made into a solid mass, this is not advisable, because it might lead one to snack on it at a later point. The version of our mishnah reads “provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.” This is interpreted to mean that if even after she removes hallah before it has been kneaded, there remain 5/4 of a kav, then the problem has not been solved, because she took out hallah to early she should only take it out once it has been kneaded, and not as soon as the water has been mixed in with the flour. Another version of this section reads, “as long as there are 5/4 of a kav of flour there.” If there is not such a measure, she should not take out hallah, even if she will add more flour later on.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that once a woman rolls out wheat dough it becomes liable for terumah. Our mishnah teaches some differences between the rules that apply before she rolls out the dough and those that apply after she rolls out the dough.
  Dough which became medumma before she had rolled it, it is exempt [from hallah]. If after she had rolled it, it is subject [to hallah].  Medumma is a mixture of terumah and hullin (non-sacred produce) when there are not 100 parts of hullin for one part terumah (this topic was dealt with at length in tractate Terumah). If the non-sacred dough becomes mixed with terumah dough before it is rolled out, then she does not need to take out hallah, because it was exempt from hallah before it ever became liable for hallah. However, if it first becomes liable for hallah when she rolls it, and only afterwards it is mixed with terumah and becomes medumma, then it is still liable for hallah. What will happen in this case is that she will have to give the hallah to the priest and the rest remains medumma, doubtful terumah. Medumma may not be eaten by a non-priest, but it may be sold to a priest.
  If there occurred to her some doubtful uncleanness before she had rolled it, it may be completed in uncleanness. If after she had rolled it, it should be completed in cleanness.  If the dough becomes doubtfully unclean before it becomes liable for hallah, meaning something may (or may not) have happened to it to make it ritually unclean, then she can continue to make the dough in a state of uncleanness. In any case the priest cannot eat the hallah that will be taken out of the dough, for it may be impure, and therefore it doesn’t matter if she makes it certainly impure. However, if it becomes doubtfully unclean after it has been rolled, then it became liable for hallah before it became impure. It is forbidden to impart certain impurity to hallah (or terumah) that is only doubtfully impure. Since this dough has already been rolled, and thereby made liable for hallah, it is treated as if it is hallah. She must make the rest of the dough in a state of purity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with differences between the rules that apply before she rolls the dough and those that apply afterwards.
  [If] she dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before rolling it, and then redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah].  Dough that has been dedicated to the Temple is exempt from hallah. This is true with regard to all of the agricultural gifts one is exempt from giving them if the produce has already been dedicated to the Temple. However, in order for the dough to be exempt it has to belong to the Temple at the time it becomes liable for hallah, meaning when it is rolled. Thus, if a woman dedicated her dough to the Temple before she rolled it and then redeemed it before she rolled it, it is subject to hallah because when she rolls it, it belongs to her again.
  [If she dedicated it] after rolling it, and redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah].  Similarly, if she dedicates the dough after it has been rolled and then she redeems it, it is liable for hallah, because she owned it at the time it became liable.
  [But if] she dedicated it before rolling it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it, and after that she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time of its obligation it was exempt.  However, if she dedicates it before she rolls it, and then the Temple treasurer (or any other Temple agent) takes possession of it and rolls it, and then she redeems it, it is exempt because it belonged to the Temple when it became liable for hallah. While this may be a case that will never in actuality happen, what is important is that it teaches a principle if it is in her possession when it becomes liable for hallah, she must separate the hallah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. This time the subject is tithes.  Produce becomes liable for tithes once its processing is completed. This very same mishnah appeared in Peah 4:8. My commentary here is the same as I wrote there.
  Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes   and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].  Produce becomes liable to be tithed once it has been harvested, processed and made into a pile.  Before this point he may eat of it without tithing.  In the scenario in this section, he dedicates it before it becomes liable to be tithed and then he redeems it before it comes liable to be tithed.  He is then liable to tithe the produce when it becomes liable for tithes.
  If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].  In this case he dedicated it and redeemed it after he became liable for tithing, so again, he is liable to tithe the produce before he goes ahead and uses it.
  If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt.  In this case, he dedicates it before it is even a third ripe and then the produce ripens, is harvested and the Temple treasurer makes the grain into a pile.  Since the grain was in the legal possession of the Temple when it became liable for tithes, he is not liable for tithes when he redeems it.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Only dough owned by a Jew is subject to hallah, not dough owned by a Gentile. This mishnah teaches when the dough is considered to be owned by a Jew.
  If a Gentile gave [flour] to an Israelite to make for him dough, it is exempt from hallah.  Since this flour is owned by a Gentile, it is exempt from hallah, even though the Jew is the one who kneaded it.
  If the Gentile gave it to him as a gift, before rolling it, he is liable. If after rolling it, he is exempt.  If the Gentile gave the dough to the Jew as a gift, then it will depend on when he gave it to him. If he gave it to him before rolling it, then it is liable for hallah because a Jew owned it when it became liable for hallah. But if he gave it to him after he rolled it, then it is exempt from hallah, because a Gentile owned it when it became liable.
  If one makes dough together with a Gentile, then if there is not in [the portion] of the Israelite the minimum measure subject to hallah, it is exempt from hallah.  If a Jew joins in a partnership with a Gentile to make dough, then the dough is liable for hallah if the Jew’s portion is the minimum measure of 5/4 of a kav. If not, then the dough is exempt, even if there is together more than 5/4 of a kav.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable.  As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a non-Jew’s dough is not subject to hallah. If a non-Jew has dough, and then converts, the dough is not subject to hallah if he made it before he converted. If he made it after he converted, it is subject to hallah.
  And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth.  If it is unclear whether he made it before he converted or not, then he must give hallah. However, this hallah is not treated as “certain” hallah, rather just as “doubtful” hallah, meaning it may or not be hallah. It should be eaten by a priest but if a non-priest eats it, he must restore to the priests the value of that which he ate, but not an added fifth. Only one who eats “certain” hallah must pay back an added fifth of the value, which is the same law that governs terumah.
  Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.  In all of the above mishnayot we learned that dough becomes liable for hallah once it is rolled. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with all of these mishnayot and holds that the end of processing for dough, meaning the point at which it becomes obligated for hallah, is when it forms a light crust in the oven. This is derived from Numbers 15:19 which reads, “And it will be when you eat from the bread of the land, you shall take out terumah for the Lord.” The operative word here is “bread” once it can be considered bread, then one must remove hallah.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah.But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.Rice is not one of the five grains subject to the laws of hallah (see 1:1), nor can one use it as matzah on Pesah. Our mishnah teaches that if one mixes rice and one of the other five grains, such as wheat, he is liable for hallah if he can taste the wheat. If he makes it into matzah he can use it as matzah at the seder, as long as he can taste the wheat.He is obligated for hallah even if there is not enough wheat flour to constitute the minimum measure required for dough to be liable for hallah (5/4 of a kav).If he cannot taste the wheat then there is no need to separate hallah and it can’t be used as matzah on Pesah.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Before people bought yeast at the supermarket, people used starter dough to leaven their bread. They would take a piece of leavened dough (sour dough) from one batch and put it into another batch. Our mishnah deals with a person who takes starter dough from a batch of dough from which hallah had not been taken, and puts it into a batch of dough from which hallah had been taken. He obviously wants to avoid having to separate hallah again from dough which already had hallah removed.
  One who takes leaven out of dough from which hallah had not been taken and puts it into dough from which hallah had been taken:If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [hallah] in accordance with the precise amount.  If he has another batch of dough (a third batch) from which hallah had not yet been removed, and he can use that batch to remove hallah to exempt the leaven which he put into another batch (meaning that batch is large enough), then he may do so according to the amount of leaven he added to the other batch.
  But if does not, he takes out one [portion of] hallah for the whole [dough].  However, if he does not have another batch of hallah, then he must remove hallah from the batch to which he added the leaven according to the amount of dough in the entire batch, even though he only added a little bit of leaven. Since he can’t separate hallah for that little bit of leaven from another batch, it places the entire batch into which it has been under the category of dough from which hallah has not been removed.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  When one harvests olive trees, and some olives are left in the tree, the poor have the right to come and strike the tree to bring down the last remaining olives. Similarly, if there are grapes that are not fully formed at the regular time of harvest, they belong to the poor.
  Regularly harvested grapes and olives are liable to terumah and tithes, but those left for the poor are not.
  Our mishnah discusses what one can do if his regularly harvested grapes or olives become mixed with those belonging to the poor. Can he get away without having to separate terumah and tithes based on the entire larger amount?
  Similarly, if olives of [regular] picking became mixed with olives [left over] for striking-off   [by the poor], or grapes of [regular] picking, with grapes [left over] for gleaning [by the poor]:If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [terumah and tithes] in accordance with the precise amount.  This is the same rule as that found in section one in yesterday’s mishnah.
  But if does not, he takes out one terumah and terumat maaser for all of the grapes.  If he does not have other produce from which to take out the terumah, then he must separate terumah and the terumah that is taken from tithes (terumat maaser) for the entire amount, even though the produce that was for the poor was exempt. Note that he does not need to take out tithes for the entire amount. The law is stricter when it comes to terumah because a non-priest who eats terumah is liable for death by the hands of heaven. Therefore, he has to be certain that he has separated terumah for the entire amount.
  And as for the rest, [he takes out] tithe and the second tithe in accordance with the precise amount.  The laws regarding tithes are not as strict because a non-priest can eat tithe. Therefore, he can take out tithe and second tithe for the amount of produce that is actually liable to tithes and second tithe. This is the amount of his produce that is in the mixture; it does not include the produce that belongs to the poor.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah returns us to the subject that was first raised in mishnah seven above dough from wheat flour that is mixed in with dough from rice flour. As a reminder, wheat flour is subject to the laws of hallah whereas rice flour is not.
  One who takes leaven from a dough of wheat [flour] and puts [it] into dough of rice [flour],   [then] if it has the taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, [but] if not, it is exempt.  Leaven is the sour dough used to make new batches of bread rise. If leaven is taken from wheat flour dough and put into rice flour dough, the batch is liable for hallah only if one can still taste the wheat flour.
  If so, why did they say: “Untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited”?  This section raises a difficulty on the law presented in the previous section. According to the quote in this section, “untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited,” if even a small amount of untithed produce falls into a large amount of tithed produce, then one cannot eat the produce until he removes tithes and terumah. Why then did they say in section one that the mixture becomes prohibited only if it imparts taste?
  That is [with regard to a mixture of] a species with its own species, but [with regard to a mixture of a species] not with its own species, only when it imparts taste.  The answer is that there is a difference between cases in which one species becomes mixed up in the same species and cases where different species are mixed. So, for instance, if a tiny bit of wheat dough from which hallah had not been removed became mixed up with a large batch of wheat dough from which hallah had been removed, it would be forbidden to eat of it until he removes hallah. There can be no concept of “imparting taste” here because it all has the same taste. In contrast, if there are two different species, then the species that has not had its terumah removed (or that is liable for hallah, as in section one) must impart taste to the species that has had its terumah removed (or is liable for hallah). If there is no taste, then the mixture is not prohibited.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses the difference between cases where two batches of dough from the same species come into contact and cases where two batches of dough from different species come into contact.
  Two women who made [separate doughs] from two [separate] kavs, and these [doughs] touched one another, even if they are of the same species, they are exempt [from hallah].  In this case two women each make a batch of dough and this batch of dough is only a kav in volume, which means that the dough is not subject to hallah (5/4 of a kav is the minimum). If these two batches of dough come into contact with each other they are still not subject to hallah because they are owned by different women. This is true even if they are of the same species.
  When they belong to one woman: If one species [comes into contact] with the same species, they are subject [to hallah]. If different species, they are exempt.  If the two batches of dough belong to the same woman, then if the two batches of dough are made from the same species, they are liable because they join together to create the minimum measure. If they are of different species then the two batches do not join together to form a minimum measure and they remain exempt from hallah.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In the beginning of the tractate we learned that there are five species of grain: wheat, barley, rye, spelt and oats. Here we see that for the purpose of mixtures of different types of grain, these don’t all count as separate species. Rather, in most cases, these different species are reckoned together. This is probably because they look somewhat the same.
  What counts as a species with its same species?Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt;  Wheat is a separate species and is not reckoned together with any other species, other than spelt. Thus if wheat and oat batches of dough come into contact, they do not join for the sake of making them subject to hallah.
  Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat.  Barley is reckoned with all four other species, except for wheat, which we learned above is only reckoned with spelt.
  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another.  Finally, Rabbi Yohanan b. Nuri explains that with regard to spelt, rye and oats, they are all reckoned together. We should note that overall the better the quality of grain, the less likely it is to join together with other species. Wheat is the “king of grains” and the best bread is made from wheat. Therefore, it is nearly exclusive, joining together only with spelt. Barley is less than wheat, and so it joins together with everything but wheat. Finally, the other grains are similar to barley and they too join together with all other grains, except for wheat.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of when separate batches of dough join together. The mishnah describes a situation in which there are three batches of dough in a row. The first batch and the third batch are subject to hallah but the middle batch, which is touching both the first and third batch, is exempt from hallah.
  [If there are two doughs from] two [separate] kavs, and a kav of rice [dough] or a kav of terumah dough [lying] between, they are not reckoned together.  The fact that the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because it is made of rice, or because it is terumah dough which was never subject to hallah, means that it does not serve to join the two outside batches of dough. Since they are each less than the minimum measurement of 5/4 of a kav, they are exempt.
  [If there was] dough from which hallah had already been taken [lying] between, they are reckoned together, since it had once been subject to hallah.  If, however, the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because its hallah has already been removed, then it does serve to connect the two outside batches of dough. This dough was once liable for hallah and it is therefore categorically subject to the laws of hallah, unlike the rice or terumah dough which were never subject to hallah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A kav of [dough made from] new grain and a kav of [dough from] old grain which are stuck together: Rabbi Ishmael says: let him take [hallah] from the middle; But the sages prohibit.  Here there are two batches of dough, each of which consists of a kav, less than the minimum measure to make it liable for hallah. One batch is from new grain (lesser quality) and one is from old grain (greater quality). The two batches are stuck together, thereby making them liable for hallah according to all opinions. The question is whether one can take hallah from one in order to exempt the other. Rabbi Ishmael says that one should take from the middle of the two batches, and in this way he will take from both and exempt the entire batch. However, the sages prohibit and say that he must take from the old to exempt the old and from the new to exempt the new. Hallah that he separates from the new cannot exempt the old, nor can hallah from the old exempt the new, even though they are from the same species. Note that these two batches are similar enough to join together but not similar to allow one to separate from one for the other.
  One who has taken hallah from [dough made out of] one kav: Rabbi Akiva says: it is hallah; But the sages say: it is not hallah.  If one takes hallah out of a batch of dough that is not liable for hallah, Rabbi Akiva says that that which he takes out is considered hallah and all of the rules of hallah apply to it. Since he called it hallah, it is hallah. Rabbi Akiva seems to think that what makes hallah is the person, not the dough. The other sages say that it is not hallah, because if the dough wasn’t subject to hallah, that which he takes out of it cannot be hallah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It continues to discuss a situation where a person separated hallah from dough that was smaller than the minimum measure.
  Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable.  There were two separate kavs of dough, and the owner took hallah out of each of them even though both were exempt because they were not of sufficient quantity to be liable. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva that which he removed and called hallah is actually hallah, whereas the other sages hold that it is not. So to Rabbi Akiva, both batches are considered dough whose hallah has been removed, whereas the other sages would hold that no hallah has been removed from these two. After having separated hallah from the two batches he now goes and makes one batch of dough out of them. Now the dough is large enough to be liable for hallah. Rabbi Akiva says that since hallah has already been removed, the mixture of the two batches is not liable for hallah. The sages hold that the dough he separated from the batches when they were separate is not considered hallah and hence “hallah” has never really been taken out of this dough. Therefore, he has to separate hallah from the mixed batch.
  It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.  The rabbis love paradoxes, or at least surprising twists of halakhah. In this case, the stringency of Rabbi Akiva in the previous mishnah, that he considers that which was separated to be hallah, leads to the leniency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is exempt. The opposite could be said about the other rabbis their leniency in yesterday’s mishnah, that which was separated is not considered hallah, leads to their stringency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is liable. While this section doesn’t really add any information, it is the type of phenomenon that the Mishnah loves to pay attention to.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is complicated and I will explain it entirely, as opposed to line by line, below.
  A man may take the requisite amount for hallah out of [clean] dough from which hallah has not [previously] been removed in order to remove it in a state of cleanness   in order to go on separating [hallah] from it for [unclean] demai, until it becomes putrid, since hallah for demai may be taken from clean [dough] for unclean [dough], and from [one dough for another dough] which is not in close proximity. This mishnah refers to a person who sets aside dough in order for this dough to count as hallah for other dough that he will receive in the future from which he doesn’t want to bother separating hallah. The dough that he will receive in the future is “demai” meaning it was received from an am haaretz, one who doesn’t observe these laws, and therefore we have to be concerned lest hallah has not been removed from it. However, the laws are usually more lenient when it comes to demai. Generally, one cannot take hallah from one batch of dough in order to exempt different dough unless the two batches are in close proximity. When it comes to demai this is permitted. Secondly, one cannot separate hallah from clean dough in order to exempt unclean dough. Again, when it comes to demai this is permitted. The demai dough that he receives from the am haaretz can be assumed to be impure, and nevertheless he can separate pure hallah in order to exempt impure dough. To return to our situation, this person sets aside dough in order for that dough to count as hallah for demai dough that he will receive in the future from an am haaretz. He can do this until the dough becomes putrid. However, he is concerned lest the dough that he sets aside to count as hallah will become impure.  The problem would then be that this dough has not had its hallah removed and by the time he takes the hallah out, it will be impure hallah. To prevent this from happening, he should immediately take the hallah out of this batch of dough. This way at least the hallah for this dough will be pure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders the land of Israel to the north and east but is not considered fully part of Israel.  The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah.  The first subject dealt with in our mishnah is people who are tenant-farming land that belongs to non-Jews in Syria. Tenant-farming means that the tenant has received a piece of land from its owner in order to work the land and keep for himself a portion of the crops.
  The second section deals with whether the laws of hallah apply to dough in Syria in the same way that they do in the land of Israel.
  An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, Syria is treated like the land of Israel when it comes to tithes and to sheviit (the sabbatical year). Just as in the land of Israel if a Jew is a tenant-farmer for a non-Jew on land owned by a non-Jew, he still has to separate tithes and observe the laws of the sabbatical year, so too when it comes to land in Syria, he must separate tithes and observe the sabbatical laws. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees. He holds that since the land belongs to a non-Jew and the Jew who is working the land doesn’t own it, he need not separate tithes or observe the sabbatical laws.
  Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn that outside of the land of Israel one has to separate two portions of hallah from the dough. Consequently, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer debate what to do in Syria. Rabban Gamaliel stated above that Syria was not treated like Israel therefore, in Syria one has to separate two portions of hallah. Rabbi Eliezer above treated Syria like the land of Israel therefore in Syria one has to separate only one portion.
  They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.  The mishnah now treats us to an interesting tidbit concerning the way people were acting. Originally, they adopted both lenient rulings. In other words, when it came to tithes and the sabbatical year, they treated Syria as if it was not the land of Israel. However, when it came to hallah, they separated only one portion, as if it was the land of Israel. They were not consistent as to which rabbi they followed they always adopted the more lenient opinion. However, eventually they changed their practice and acted consistent with the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel. This seems to be the way of behaving preferred by the mishnah here and in other places as well. One should not select lenient opinions from various rabbis rather one should choose one rabbi and follow his opinions, at least when these opinions are consistent with one another, as they are here.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  In today’s mishnah Rabban Gamaliel defines the borders of Israel with regard to the issue of hallah. This same division is found in Sheviit 6:1, so I am not going to explain the geographical or historical issues here. Please look there for more information.
  According to the Torah, one need not separate hallah outside of the land of Israel (see Numbers 15:19). However, the rabbis decreed that Jews should continue to separate hallah from dough even outside of the land of Israel so that the laws of hallah would not be forgotten while the Jews were in the Diaspora. The problem is that outside of the land of Israel was considered to be impure, so that any hallah separated there would also be impure. So the hallah that they took out had to be burned. In order to remember that hallah was originally given to priests, the rabbis decreed that a Jew should separate a second portion of hallah and give that portion to the priests. It turns out, as we learned yesterday’s mishnah, that outside of the land of Israel a person would have to set aside a double portion of hallah.
  Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion.  The northern border of the land of Israel is set at Chezib (see Sheviit 6:1). Until that point one separates from dough one portion of hallah.
  From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure.  This is an “in-between” geographical region. In Sheviit 6:1 we learned that some of the laws of sheviit apply here and some do not. With regard to hallah, what is important to understand is that the region is considered impure, as are all lands outside of Israel, and therefore any hallah separated there will be impure. So the first thing he does is separate a measure of hallah and then he destroys it by burning it. The problem with this is that the rabbis were concerned lest Jews forget the rules of hallah. Seeing the hallah burnt, they may not realize that the reason it was burned and not eaten is that it was impure by virtue of it being outside of Israel. Therefore they decreed that along with the “real” hallah that needs to be burned, people should also separate one portion of hallah and give it to a priest. This hallah is not the true biblically mandated hallah, but rather originates in a decree of the rabbis. Therefore we can be more lenient with it and it need not be of the minimum size (1/48). However, the hallah that is burned is biblically mandated and therefore it must consist of the minimum measure.
  From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure.  In this region, the agricultural laws do not apply and therefore both portions of hallah, the one that is burned and the one that is given to the priest, are decrees of the rabbis and not biblically mandated. In this case the law concerning which portion requires a minimum measure applies in an opposite fashion. The portion that is burned does not need to be of minimum measure because this portion is separated only because of a rabbinic decree. However, there is a minimum measure to the portion given to the priest, even though it too was a decree of the rabbis. One of the two portions needs to be of minimum measure so that these laws will not be forgotten, so it might as well be the portion that will not go to waste.
  And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth;  This portion given to the priest is only of rabbinic origin. Therefore, some of the purity laws that normally apply to biblically-mandated hallah, do not apply to this portion. Normally, an impure priest would go to the mikveh and immerse, and then be able to eat hallah/terumah only at nightfall. In this case it is sufficient for him to go the mikveh and eat the hallah before nightfall, because this is not actually hallah. It seems that the rabbis wanted him to go to the mikveh before eating this hallah so that he would remember that hallah should not be eaten in a state of impurity. However, in order to signify that this hallah was not biblically-mandated, they were somewhat lax in the application of these laws and they allowed him to eat before he was actually pure. Rabbi Yose rules that even an impure priest may eat this terumah, without going to the mikveh at all. But, he agrees that it can’t be eaten by anyone whose impurity stems from their own body. This would include zavim and zavot, men or women who have an abnormal genital discharge, menstruants and women after childbirth. Note that the women referred to here must be either wives or daughters of priests they too can eat hallah.
  It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table;  Normally, a priest should not eat terumah or hallah at a table with a non-priest, lest the non-priest come to eat food strictly prohibited to him. Since this hallah is only of rabbinic origin, it may be eaten at a table with a non-priest.
  And it may be given to any priest.  Normally, one should not give hallah to an “am haaretz” priest, lest he defile it. We are again lenient in this case since the hallah is not biblically-mandated.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one can give hallah from outside of Israel to any priest, even an am haaretz who might defile it, because there is no prohibition of defiling this hallah. Our mishnah continues to list other priestly gifts that can be given to any priest, without fear that he will defile it. With regard to some of these things, there is no prohibition against defilement, and with regard to some of them, we assume that the priest will be cautious and not defile them.
  These may be given to any priest:Devoted things (;  Haramim are referred to in Numbers 18:14, which states, “all herem (devoted thing) in Israel shall be yours (to Aaron and his descendents).” These refer to gifts given to priests there is no prohibition of making them impure.
  Firstlings;  “Firstlings” are the first born of pure domesticated animals, sheep, cows and goats. If they are unblemished they are sacrificed and parts are eaten by priests. If they are blemished, then the priest gets to keep the entire animal.
  The redemption of the first born;  This is the five shekels used to redeem a first-born human child (see Numbers 18:17-18).
  The [lamb substituted as] ransom for the firstling of a donkey;  The first born of a donkey is redeemed with a lamb (see Exodus 13:13). The priest gets the lamb.
  The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw;  The parts of non-sacrificial animals given to the priest (see Deuteronomy 18:3-4).
  The first of the fleece;  The priest gets the first shearings of the sheep (Deuteronomy 18:4).
  Oil [fit only] for burning;  Impure terumah must be burned. Since it is already impure, one can give it to an am haaretz priest.
  Consecrated food [which must be eaten] within the Temple;  If the priest has to eat the offering within the Temple then we can assume that he will eat it in purity. Am haaretz priests were not suspected of going into the Temple while impure.
  And bikkurim. Rabbi Judah prohibits bikkurim.  First fruits must be eaten while pure (both the fruit and the person). The rabbis hold that since these first fruits will be brought to the Temple, the am haaretz priest will be careful with their purity and therefore they can be given to any priest. Rabbi Judah disagrees.
  Vetches of terumah: Rabbi Akiva permits, But the sages prohibit.  Vetches are normally animal food (see Maaser Sheni 2:4) but are occasionally eaten by humans. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not really food for humans, the laws of purity don’t apply and therefore they can be given to an am haaretz priest. The other rabbis hold that the purity laws do apply, and they should only be given to a priest known to preserve the purity laws.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him.The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them.The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (, but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).Our mishnah mentions people who did two things that were against rabbinic law. The first thing is that they brought hallah from outside of Israel into Israel. The rabbis forbade bringing hallah or terumah into Israel from outside Israel. This was prohibited in order to discourage priests from going outside of Israel to bring back terumah or hallah (see also Sheviit 6:6).The second issue mentioned is that some people would bring bikkurim before Shavuot. The rabbis also forbade this, for the verse in Exodus alludes to the fact that the first fruits should be brought on Shavuot.I find several interesting things in this mishnah. First of all, the people who did not observe rabbinic law were actually acting in some ways stricter than the rabbis demanded. They were shlepping their hallah all the way from outside of Israel into the land of Israel. They were bringing their bikkurim before they were supposed to. The picture we get is of people who were zealous in their observance, and who were being calmed down by the rabbis. It is also interesting that those outside of Israel were not following rabbinic law. We know from many places that rabbinic influence was felt largely in Israel, where most rabbis lived. This mishnah supports the notion that outside of the land, Jews did not always follow, or perhaps didn’t even know, what rabbis were teaching. But to emphasize this does not mean that they were not observant of Jewish law.Secondly, while the rabbis opposed these practices, they also bothered remembering them. The mishnah disapproves of what these people did, but it is almost as if the mishnah is also saying that although the practices are not sanctioned, they are still in some ways admirable.The mishnah itself should be easily understood, and hence there is no explanation below.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.
  Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him.  According to rabbinic law, one does not bring bekhorot, first-born animals, from outside the land of Israel.
  Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him.  The mistake of Joseph the priest was that he brought his first fruits in their processed form, as wine or oil, instead of bringing them as grapes or olives (see Terumot 11:3, for a conflicting opinion).
  He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation.  Pesah Sheni, also called Pesah Katan, is on the fourteenth of Iyyar, the month after Nissan (Numbers 9:11), during which the first “real” Pesah is celebrated. It is the “make-up date” for those who could not offer their Pesah sacrifice on the first Pesah. Joseph the priest brought his children and member’s of his household with him to Jerusalem. The rabbis directed Joseph the priest to return them home because one is obligated to bring one’s family to Jerusalem only during the first Pesah (see Exodus 23:17). Note that it is not prohibited to bring the family for Pesah Katan, it is merely unnecessary. As such, his kids and other members of his household could have stayed in Jerusalem. However, if they had stayed people would have thought that it was obligatory to bring the members of one’s household to on Pesah Sheni. Hence the rabbis told him that he should demonstrate this by bringing them back immediately.
  Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.  The mishnah (and the tractate) ends with someone whose actions were accepted by the rabbis (whew!). Ariston (not a very Jewish sounding name) lived in Apamea which is in Syria. He brought his bikkurim from there to Jerusalem. The rabbis ruled that these were acceptable because when it comes to the laws of bikkurim, Syria is treated like a suburb of Jerusalem (Haffez Assad might not like this one). We should note that one does not bring terumah from Syria, but one does bring bikkurim. The reason for this difference is that a person who sets aside terumah is not obligated to bring it to the priests in Israel. Therefore we are concerned that priests will go outside of Israel to collect their terumah. In contrast, a person must bring his first fruits to Jerusalem. Therefore, there was no need to be concerned lest priests run off to collect their bikkurim outside of Israel. Congratulations!  We have finished Hallah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Hallah is special among the tractates that we have learned because it is still observed to this day outside of the land of Israel. This is not the place for instruction as to how to observe this halakhah, but I hope that learning the tractate but I hope that it has given people “food for thought” (pun intended) as to the observance of this commandment. Of course, despite the fact that we learned that one doesn’t bring hallah from outside the land to Israel, there is no prohibition for bring delicious hallot to a hungry Talmudist living in the land of Israel…☺ Tomorrow we begin Tractate Orlah.