Talmud for Hallah 1:2

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom¹²The touch of a ṭevul yom makes heave (including ḥallah) unusable and sacrifices impure (Demay 6:6, Notes 138,140). But since the ṭevul yom has been purified, only his immediate touch is damaging, not the touch by an intermediary object. Therefore, if the ṭevul yom touches a loaf of ḥallah, he makes the ḥallah inedible, including everything connected with it. It is now stated that the rules of connection regarding the obligation of ḥallah are not identical with the rules governing an eventual disqualification of the ḥallah taken., [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there¹³Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 1:1, dealing with a Cohen who collects ḥallah from several households to carry home in one basket but does not intend to eat the different morsels together.: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there¹⁴If the ṭevul yom touches one piece of ḥallah, that piece is unusable but all the others are unimpaired.: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment¹⁵Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 2:5: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed; if a ṭevul yom touched the sediment, the pieces are permitted. If he touched a piece, it and all that clings to it are connected. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says both are connected to one another.” “Sediment” are the remainders of spices, single fibers from the meat, and assorted matrer which usually clings to the sides of the cooking pot. Since any such sediment will be scraped or washed off before the meat is eaten, it is considered separate. congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection¹⁶Separate pieces of sediment on one piece of meat are considered as one; in the case of ḥallah they would not be considered one as indicated by the next statement by R. Joḥanan. even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said¹⁷Chapter 1:8, first paragraph., if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

⁹⁵This paragraph and the next two are also in Ḥallah 1:8. The text in Ḥallah is somewhat better; it is the original since the second paragraph following belongs only to Ḥallah. The initial statement is also quoted in Ma‘serot Halakhah 4:1. 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 notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state⁹⁶Ḥallah Mishnah 1:7.: “And similarly women who gave⁹⁷Flour. to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount⁹⁸The minimum amount of flour to produce dough subject to ḥallah is 5/4 standard qab. Even if the total amount of flour the baker turns into sour dough is greater than that amount, there is no obligation of ḥallah since the flour never became his property. This argument is appropriate for questioning R. Joḥanan’s position, not R. Simeon ben Laqish’s. it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount⁹⁹This sentence is missing in Ḥallah. It introduces an extraneous argument; if the baker makes one big batch of sour dough from the flour and the obligated amount is not recognizable, it is clear that all is obligated.?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it¹⁰⁰To different people to bake their own bread., the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated¹⁰¹First part of Ḥallah Mishnah 1:7.: “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 it will become ṭevel immediately¹⁰²This argument can only be understood by a combination with the text in Ḥallah 1:8: שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא לְקוּחוֹת וְהוּא חוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶה אוֹתָהּ עִיסָּה. “maybe he will find customers and he uses it immediately for dough”. Maybe the customer buys the sour dough not for making bread at home but for bread the baker will make for him. Then the sour dough is immediate ṭevel by the sale in the baker’s hands.
The commentators change the text to: “maybe he will not find a customer and he uses it immediately for dough himself”. This is unnecessary and false since his own sour dough in his own bread dough can be put in order by one ḥallah given when the bread dough is completely kneaded.. He said to him, but was it not stated¹⁰³In Ḥallah 1:8, והא תנינן “did we not state”, formula appropriate for a Mishnah. But it seems that the formula (for a baraita) used here is correct since מחייבת in the Mishnah is replaced by החייבת. (In Ḥallah, one reads only חייבת.) One has to conclude that the reading of the manuscripts, מחייבת, is not a scribal error but a stand-in for מחויבת.: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,⁹⁴Grains found in antholes the day after a heap of grain was smoothed but not yet tithed have to be tithed since they were taken from grain completely processed but not tithed.” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation¹⁰⁴יאוש “resignation” is a technical term for the automatic turning of lost property into ownerless property once the original owners have given up hope for recovery. No declaration of abandonment is needed in that case. Since grains taken by ants have to be considered as abandoned, even if recovered by the original owner they can be subject to heave and tithes only if the tithing of the heap by the original owner also extends to grains not in his possession now. Tithing those grains is tantamount to tithing of another’s property without the latter’s knowledge.. Samuel ben Abba¹⁰⁵He is Samuel, the head of the Academy of Nahardea. He explains “exempt” not as “already tithed” but “not yet threshed”, so that the ants took not grains but parts of ears. In that case, the grains taken by the ants do not fall under our rules. He also must hold that ערימה in contrast to כרי denotes an unsmoothed heap which is obligated if the owner does not intend to process further. said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

It was stated²⁰²Tosephta 2:17, Ḥallah 1:1; Babli 35a.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit²⁰³According to the Geonim (Ozar Hageonim Pesaḥim p. 33) a grain growing wild among reeds in swamps, used as human food in times of famine. In the opinion of I. Löw, (Flora der Juden l, p. 703) Glyceria fluitans. a grain preferring swampy ground, frequently used for animal feed, also for soups and flour. {Also cf. Latin gramen, -inis, n. “grass, dog’s grass” (Plin. Hist. Nat.24,19,118, §178) (E.G.)}. is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, ²⁰⁴Here starts a Genizah text edited by L Ginzberg (Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah. New York 1909, pp. 102–115.) it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.