Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Hallah 3:1

(ישעיהו כ״ח:כ״ה) ושם חיטה שורה ושעורה נסמן וכוסמת גבולתו. ושם חיטה אלו החיטים שורה זו שבולת שועל ולמה נקרה שמה שורה שהיא עשויה כשורה. שעורה אלו השעורים. נסמן זה השיפון. וכוסמת זה הכוסמין. גבולתו לחם. עד כאן גבולו של לחם ולמידין מן הקבלה. א"ר סימון מן מה דכתיב (שם) ויסרו למשפט אלהיו יורנו כמי שהוא דבר תורה. א"ר סימון אילין נשייא דאמרין לא ניעול בגינן לכנישתא אין חמי לי' מילף מילף הוא. לא עבדין טבאות אלא ויסרו למשפט אלהיו יורנו: ר' יודא בר פזי בשם ר' יונתן דר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה היא דתני ר' <יוחנן> ישמעאל בנו של ר"י ב"ב אומר יכול מביא מן הכוסמין ושבולת שועל והשיפון. ודין הוא ומה אם החטים שכשרו לשאר כל המנחו' לא כשרו למנחת העומר. כוסמין ושבולת שועל והשיפון שלא כשרו לשאר כל המנחות אינו דין שלא יכשרו למנחת העומר. השעורי' יוכיחו שלא כשרו לשאר כל המנחות וכשרו למנחת העומר. לא אם אמרת בשעורין שמנחת סוטה באה מהן. תאמר בכוסמין ושבולת שוען ושיפון שאין מנחת סוטה באה מהן. יצאו החיטים מן הכתוב. וכוסמין ושבולת שועל והשיפון מק"ו. א"ר יוסי מי סבור סבר רבי יהודא בן פזי שמנחת העומר באה מן הכוסמין ושבולת שועל והשיפון אילו מן דאמר תאנים שחורות עלי שמא אינו מותר בלבנות אלא שחורות אמר לבנות לא אמר. והכא שעורה אביב אמר שבולת שועל אביב לא אמר.

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east;

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said25The disagreement between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan is in Terumot 4:1, Note 10., ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible26If he replants in a way which will eliminate the duty of tithing from the ripe fruits, it is intelligible that we require him to tithe now since otherwise also the part which grew under a potential obligation will be free if the new growth is more than what is already grown.. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything27Since the original ṭevel will not disappear, replanting will never free the current crop and no tithing now should be necessary, in obvious disagreement with the Mishnah!. Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah28Wine, olive oil, and threshed grain brought to storage. but for ṭevel which has this status by their word29By rabbinical tradition. everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state30Mishnah Ḥallah 3:7: “Similarly, olives for pressing {harvested by the owner by shaking the tree} which were mixed with picked olives {gleaned by the poor and exempt from tithes}, harvest grapes {subject to tithes} which were mixed with grapes of gleanings {of the poor and exempt from tithes}, if he can provide for {the obligated} from another place, he should do so; otherwise, he takes heave and Heave of the Tithe for everything but the tithes only in proportion.”: “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words31The obligation for heave and Heave of the Tithe even for the proportion gleaned by the poor cannot be biblical; if the exempt amount is more than the obligated, the entire obligation is rabbinical.? Rebbi Mana32R. Mana II. said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing33Obligated by biblical decree. which was mixed with oil from picked olives.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Challah

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.).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Challah

MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah113Cf. Peah 4, Note 97. Since the poor may sell the grain collected as gleanings, etc., the flour from these grains is subject to all rules of regularly harvested grain. The detailed arguments for exemption are in Ma‘serot 1, Notes 18–23., as well as abandoned property114Cf. Peah 6, Note 1, for the exemption from heave and tithes., First tithe of which its heave had been taken115This is purely profane; there is no reason why it should not be subject to ḥallah. The statement which is needed is that flour made from first tithe taken before the great heave becomes profane upon separation of the heave of the tithe (its heave, in the language of the Mishnah) without any great heave., second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed116But unredeemed second tithe in Jerusalem is free from ḥallah for R. Meïr who holds that it is Heaven’s property; cf. Ma‘aser Šeni 4, Note 67., the excess of the ‘omer117The flour from the barley cut for the ‘omer presentation which was not needed in the Temple. This was redeemed and sold by the Temple as profane., and grain not yet one-third ripe118According to the majority opinion, dough made from flour of green kernels, not yet one-third ripe, can become leavened and therefore is subject to ḥallah.; cf. Notes 15–20.. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah.
The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes151Anything from which a kind of flour can be extracted, other than grasses. The main examples are peas and beans., and less than five quarter [qab] of grain152A dough made with more than this volume of flour is subject to ḥallah; Mishnah and Halakhah 2:6.. Bismarcks153The traditional spelling pronunciation is הַסּוּפְגָּנִים but better Mishnah sources write the word without ו, derived from Greek σπόγγος, Armenian and Syriac spung “ sponge”. According to Arukh, they are what in Arabic is called إسْفُنْج isfunj, spherical spongy cakes fried in oil. In modern Hebrew, the word is used in the feminine: סופגניות., honey cakes154Defined in the Halakhah as “milk and honey”. The readings of the Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah, הדיבשנים, or of the Munich ms. of the Babli, הדבשנים, are preferable., roasted cakes155Greek, [ἄρτος] ἐσχαρίτης, ὁ, “[bread] baked over the fire”., pancakes156Cf. 2S. 13:9., and dema‘157Profane and heave mixed together, forbidden to all but Cohanim. are free from ḥallah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Challah

Available for Premium members only
Full Chapter