Yerushalmi Challah 3:1 ירושלמי חלה ג׳:א׳

MISHNAH: One may eat a snack¹Without taking ḥallah. from the dough until it was rolled²After kneading it was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave. if wheat dough or compacted³Barley dough does not hold together well and after shaping it has to be squeezed together to close the holes. if barley dough. After it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough, one who eats from it commits a deadly sin. After she added water she may lift its ḥallah⁴While the obligation of ḥallah starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving ḥallah legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. In Pesaḥim 3:3 (fol. 30a), R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give ḥallah from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing. on condition that there be five quarters of flour⁵This is the reading of the Yerushalmi mss., the Munich ms. of the Babli, and a number of good Mishnah mss. In this version, at least 5 quarters of flour have to be wetted before the possibility of giving ḥallah starts. The Maimonides autograph, a number of important Mishnah mss., and an Amora in the Halakhah read: on condition that there not be five quarters of flour, meaning that the flour which is still dry cannot be of the minimal volume which triggers an independent duty of ḥallah since in that case, the ḥallah taken would not free the dough made later from the dry flour. The early Medieval authors all report that there are two conflicting readings, both of which seem to be genuine..

HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal⁶Using the mixture of flour and water as a cereal for a sit-down meal. it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rebbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following⁷The reference is to Ma‘serot 4:3, Notes 61 ff. where in a similar case it is stated that taking food not fully processed will never create an obligation of heave if the remainders can be returned to be processed further. what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra]⁸Reading of the Rome ms. and the text in Ma‘serot. Missing in the Leyden ms. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

But that⁹This does not refer to the Mishnah here but to Mishnah 2:3 which is formulated: If somebody cannot make his dough in purity. This implies that if he is able to make the dough in purity he may not make it in small loaves. means, he who cannot process in purity, because he is unable. Therefore, if he is able this does not apply. This means that it is forbidden for a person to make his dough qab sized¹⁰Unless the total volume of the flour used for all loaves is less than the minimum 5 quarters..

For all other things¹¹All flour other than wheat and barley. one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, after what do you go, after rolling or after compacting? Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: ḥallah in a form¹²This translation is tentative since גבלול appears only here. The meaning is guessed from rabbinic Hebrew גבל “to form into dough,” Arabic جبل “to form”., after it was rolled for wheat flour or compacted for barley flour. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, after if was well formed. Do they differ? One is for practice, the other for study matters¹³Since none of the authors of religious codes quotes this paragraph, it is difficult to ascertain which opinion is the one that should guide practice..

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings¹⁴Tosephta 1:12, speaking of a convert who accepts Judaism while making a dough.. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like the heave of the threshing floor.” Since heave of the threshing floor is taken after the end of processing, so this also is taken after the end of processing. Then after it was baked? Rebbi Mattaniah: It is compared to heave only for doughmaking¹⁵Since Num. 15:20 defines ḥallah as “start of your doughs” and not “start of your breads”..

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This¹⁶This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that legal ḥallah can be taken as soon as the flour is moistened. R. Simeon ben Laqish must read with Maimonides that not 5 quarters are still dry. The Mishnah then does not imply that 5 quarters of flour are already moistened; one might object that then there is no obligation of ḥallah. is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there¹⁷Mishnah 4:4.: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah, but the Sages say it is no ḥallah.” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start¹⁸If R. Aqiba validates ḥallah which was taken against the rules, it does not mean he will accept that one may start with the intention of giving ḥallah as long as the dough does not contain five quarters.? Here we deal with the start. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹Mishnah 3:1 cannot be derived from 4:4 but the Sages who declare ḥallah from less than 5 quarters invalid cannot accept Mishnah 3:1 (in the Maimonides version.).

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated²⁰The Rome ms. reads תני instead of דתני. In that case, the Tosephta is not quoted by R. Joḥanan to bolster his case but by the editors in order to question his argument. Then one should read “… your doughs.” It was stated …: ²¹Tosephta Terumot5:15, quoted in Demay 7:9, Note 137.Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden²²To laymen. in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion²³Since heave of the tithe does not have to be earmarked, if the Levite has other tithe from which heave of the tithe was not yet taken, he can include the heave for the mixed tithe in the heave he gives from his other tithe and make the mixture profane.. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101²⁴Heave cannot be removed unless declared as such, even if only implicitly by saying, for example: Heave shall be in the Northern part of the grain heap. “Lifting” a replacement of the impure heave was explained in Terumot 4, Note 62..” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul²⁵An Amora of the second generation, living near Bet Shean. in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot²⁶Wives or unmarried daughters of Cohanim. Since they had to watch over purity in their homes, they were called to take ḥallah in purity for lay wives. implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it²⁷From the text of the declaration it is clear that ḥallah is taken at the very first moment, when there still is some flour not moistened, the sour dough not thoroughly worked in, and some pieces being separated. Flatbread in Arabic is قُرص.. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it²⁸If practice would follow R. Eleazar ben Arakh, the Cohenet should lift an amount corresponding to the impurity and then take pure ḥallah..” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis²⁹He said the same as R. Samuel from Cappadocia but did not mention the latter’s name., one said in one case there is enough to lift³⁰Then one follows R. Eleazar ben Arakh., in the other case there is not enough to lift³¹Then one formulates the declaration following the Cohanot.; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place³²One has to follow the Cohanot since in this case even R. Eleazar ben Arakh would not permit taking from the dough without their special declaration..

Rebbi Yose said, the statement is reasonable on Sabbath eves; since everybody is bringing, it is as if she separated from what is obligated for what is obligated. But on weekdays, while they instituted that ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated³³Fridays every woman will bake more than the minimal amount. Therefore, at the moment the Cohenet takes the dough for ḥallah, it becomes ḥallah. But during the week, if the amount barely is obligated, the piece taken by the Cohenet is exempt because it is less than 5 quarters. Therefore, if all flour is kneaded and the obligation of ḥallah established, designating now that extra piece as ḥallah would be satisfying one’s obligation with exempt food and this is forbidden for all types of heave.? Rebbi Jonah said, it is only reasonable on weekdays, but on Sabbath eve she would have to say “all, including the impure.” Why? Since [some dough] is taken before all is one mass, when all is made into one mass the former is sanctified as ḥallah. If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah³⁴Since the declaration by the Cohenet excludes any impurity in the dough taken for ḥallah, that part remains ṭevel. Since it is impure and a small quantity, it makes the ḥallah dough forbidden for everybody, including the Cohen.. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt³⁵A part carefully made in purity by the Cohenet. R. Jonah must hold that the prohibition to give heave from exempt food is purely rabbinical and can be voided if there is no other way out. for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, does it not become dedicated retroactively? Since it is dedicated retroactively, it is as if one gave from what is obligated for the obligated³⁶R. Samuel ben Eudaimon disagrees with the entire discussion, both by R. Yose and R. Jonah. Since at the moment of declaration nothing happens, all remains ṭevel at this moment. If the kneaded dough reaches critical mass, the ḥallah becomes dedicated retroactively; there is no ṭevel and no exempt dough remaining. Therefore, the declaration of the Cohenet is valid both on a regular weekday and on a Friday..

Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour?³⁷This is Maimonides’s reading in the Mishnah. Since we have decided that ḥallah can be given conditionally, the unmixed flour mentioned by the Cohanot should not be limited.” Rebbi³⁸Either a name has disappeared from both mss. or this is Rebbi’s reason to change the prior formulation of the Mishnah to the text transmitted in both Talmudim. said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot.