Yerushalmi Challah 1:5 ירושלמי חלה א׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah. But women who gave to a baker that he should make sour dough for them are free from ḥallah if no individual gave a full measure.¹⁹⁹This Mishnah was explained in Ma‘serot 5:6. The following Halakhah 8 is identical with Halakhah Ma‘serot5:6 and was explained there, Notes 95–109. It is presupposed that the baker made sour dough for retail sale from more than ⁵/₄ qab of flour.
A dog biscuit, if the shepherds eat from it, is obligated for ḥallah²⁰²Since it is written (Num. 15:19): “When you eat from the bread of the Land”, to exclude bread as animal feed from the obligation of ḥallah (Sifry Suṭa Šelaḥ 21)., one may use it for eruv and participation²⁰³To allow carrying on the Sabbath in a common courtyard or dead-end street, cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193., one may recite the blessing over it²⁰⁴The blessing “Who produced bread from the earth” appropriate for bread; Mishnah Berakhot 6:1. and one invites²⁰⁵To recite grace in a group, which is done only for a meal with bread; Mishnah Berakhot 7:1. for it, it may be made on a holiday²⁰⁶Since only human food may be cooked or baked on a holiday, Ex. 12:16. This rule is not unchallenged; R. Aqiba holds that animal feed also may be cooked on a holiday, Yom Tob 1:11 (fol. 61a), Babli Beẓah 21b., and a person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover²⁰⁷If it is unleavened and from the approved five kinds of flour, it is counted as bread.. If the shepherds do not eat from it, it is not obligated for ḥallah, one may not use it for eruv and participation, it may not be made on a holiday, and no person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover. In any case it can become impure in the impurity of food²⁰⁸Animal feed may be human food in an emergency; it is susceptible to impurity even if there is no intent to use it as human food..

HALAKHAH: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him¹⁴⁰The two cases have been explained but the original question was not answered.. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and goes against Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was²⁰¹This is slightly different from the text in Ma‘serot but does not change the meaning. of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.

What is dog biscuit? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, any with coarse bran mixed in.

The Mishnah said: “if the shepherds eat from it.” Maybe sometimes the shepherds will not eat from it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any he made into cracknels²⁰⁹Arabic كعك “ring-shaped pastry; pretzel”; definition of Arukh based on Gaonic sources. R. Joḥanan disagrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish and holds that the composition of the bread does not define its legal status, only the intent of the baker as expressed in the shape he is baking... We also have stated so²¹⁰Tosephta 1:6, in the name of R. Jehudah, reading of the Erfurt ms.: “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected²¹¹Several loaves connected together; from a Hebrew root למד “to connect”, cf. S. Krauss’s Note to Arukh s. v. ³למד. it is free.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Ammi in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, even if he formed it as rolls²¹²Greek κόλλιξ; cf. Berakhot 6, Note 103.. But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it?²¹³It is obvious that a shepherd will eat a small cake which he does not have to share with his dog but even from a large loaf he may cut a piece for himself before giving the remainder to the dog. It is difficult to see why the shape of the loaves should have any influence on their legal status.” Explain it if he made it from the start [thinking] that the shepherds should not eat from it²¹⁴One disagrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish but also with R. Joḥanan. The status of the bread is determined by the intent of the baker..

“It may be made on a holiday.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as it was stated²¹⁵Tosefta Yom Ṭob 2:3, reading of the Erfurt ms. and the Yerushalmi Yom Ṭob 2:1 (fol. 61b). The Babli (Beẓah 17a) and the Vienna ms. read אין אופין “one does not bake”. In all Tosephta sources, the second quote is formulated in the masculine but even the Babli quotes it as speaking of a woman cook.: “One does not make [food] on a holiday for use after the holiday.” Also, it was stated: “A woman may fill a pot with meat even if one eats only one piece from it, a water pot²¹⁶Latin cucuma, ae, f., “kettle”. with hot water even if one drinks only one cup from it. But baking, she should bake only what she needs.” For it is stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may fill the entire oven with bread because the bread turns out well if the oven is filled.²¹⁷Since the Mishnah here is anonymous and permits the preparation of dog biscuits unconditionally, it determines practice following R. Simeon ben Eleazar [Yom Ṭob 2:1 (fol. 61b), Babli Beẓah 17a.]”

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed maẓẓah²¹⁸The parallel is in Šabbat 13:3 (fol. 14a); in the Babli (Sanhedrin 6b, Baba Qama 94a) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:1 (fol. 18b) this is a tannaïtic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating maẓẓah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of (Ps. 10:3): “He who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.²¹⁹Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal!” The Tosephta (Sanhedrin 1:2) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.” Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation²²⁰The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace.? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed²²¹A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty.. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin²²²He accepts R. Jonah’s logic, cf. Note 159.. Rebbi Hila said, (Lev. 27:34): “These are the commandments.” If you did them they way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds²²³He sides with R. Jonah against R. Yose..