MISHNAH: Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats [For the determination of these grains, see Kilaim 1, Notes 2–3. In current practice, שיפון is interpreted as rye, following Rashi. Flour made from these and only these grains qualifies as bread flour. All other flours are cake flours; bread made from them is legally cake.] . These are subject to ḥallah and combine with one another [Mixed dough is subject to ḥallah if the volume of flour used is at least that specified in Mishnah 2:6.] . They are forbidden as new grain before Passover [Lev. 23:14.] and may not be cut before the ‘omer [The ‘omer is the sheaf of barley cut first in the spring harvest and brought to the Temple (Lev. 23:10), in rabbinic interpretation on the second day of Passover, the 16 of Nisan.] . If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them [While the first harvest is that of barley, all other grains, including wheat, are immediately permitted for profane use. Only for the Temple is new wheat forbidden until the Festival of First Fruits, Lev. 23:16.] ; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.
HALAKHAH: [This and the next paragraphs are also in Pesaḥim 2:4 (fol. 29b).] “Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave [This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave.] for the Eternal.” I could think that everything [Since לחם can also mean “food”, cf. Gen. 47:12.] is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley [Since bread is usually made from these.] . From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough, [The expression is emphasized by repetition. One has to include every grain usable for making dough.] ” this includes. Does it include everything [According to this argument, rice and millet for example should also be included.] ? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon [This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.] : Rebbi Ismael stated this.
Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra [The son of R. Zeïra who had been a baraita teacher in his father’s academy. The father of R. Mana was R. Jonah.] , but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael [A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.] : “Bread” is mentioned for Passover [Deut. 16:2.] and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah [Num. 15:19.] . Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah [Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called maẓẓah since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not qualify as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil.] or leavened but would spoil.
It was stated [Tosephta 1:1; cf. Tosephta Pesaḥim 2:17; Babli Pesaḥim 35a.] : “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit [According to the Geonim (Oẓar 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 1, 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, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.
There [Terumot 10:2. The paragraph is explained there, Notes 15–19.] , we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.
And just as you say only the five kinds can become maẓẓah and leavened, so only wheat and barley can be dragged with anything [They can be dragged to be subject to ḥallah even if only a small part of the dough is grain and the rest is filler. The reference is either to Mishnah 3:6 or Tosephta 2:1, a cake made from rice and wheat is subject to ḥallah if it tastes like bread. The question is whether “wheat” stands for any grain or only for wheat itself and the grains closely related to it.] . Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, we have only stated: “He who makes dough from wheat and rice;” only wheat can be dragged in.
Is one guilty because of new grain [New grain is forbidden until the sheaf of barley is brought to the Temple on Passover; Lev. 23:9–14. It is stated here that the definition of “bread” established for Passover and ḥallah is valid for the prohibition of new grain also.] when it is roasted? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” Anything for whose bread you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for parched grain because of new grain; but anything for whose bread you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for parched grain because of new grain.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab [Since Mishnah 2:6 states that dough made from /4 qab of flour is subject to ḥallah, it is clear that one has to read here “quarter qab” instead of qab. The leavened flour by itself is not enough to induce an obligation of ḥallah.] separately and made them leavened, and another four qab [Another /4 qab of rice, millet, or pea flour which cannot be leavened and which by themselves never induce an obligation of ḥallah.] separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation [After he mixed the leavened dough with the non-grain flour, he now has 2 qab which potentially are obligated for ḥallah.] for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened. [If the leavened flour were more than the unleavened, the unleavened could be disregarded and all would be subject to ḥallah but when is it evenly split it does not satisfy our crtiteria.] ] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread [A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.] [Deut. 16:2.] . Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread [This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.] . Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila [He says in Halakhah 3:6 that there can be no obligation of ḥallah unless more then 50% is bread flour and the finished product tastes like bread. R. Zeïra in that Halakhah is quoted as stating that R. Hila got the names of the Tannaïm wrong in his baraita.] even though he disagrees with him.
Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse (Is. 28:25): “He puts wheat, śorāh, barley; nismān and spelt are its limit.” “He puts wheat”, that is wheat [The rabbinic equivalents to the biblical Hebrew names are given for all five kinds.] . “Śorāh” is foxtail and why is it called śorāh? Because it is made in a line [The expression חטה שׂוֹרה probably means “ripe wheat”, cf. Accadic šer‘u “ripe grain”. All expressions are explained here as names of grains. The interpretation of שׂורה as שׁורה shows that in Talmudic times in Galilee, š was heard as s, under the influence of Greek. Cassuto in his biblical commentary accepts the interpretation as genuine.] . “Barley”, that is barley. “Nismān” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit”, bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition [The common name for Prophets and Hagiographs. These are sources of moral teachings but have no standing as books of law.] ? Rebbi Simon said, since it is written (Is. 28:26): “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him, [This interpretation, in contrast to that of the next paragraph, follows the masoretic division of the text.] ” it is as if it were a word of the Torah [But the next paragraph immediately contradicts this statement; there is no source of biblical law other than the Torah. {Prophets and Hagiographs are used as basis for rabbinic decrees.}] .
Rebbi Simon said, those women who say: we shall not send our sons to the communal school; if he is good at learning he will learn [by himself]; they do not act well, but (Is. 28:29): “He shall be instructed in his God’s law, it will teach him.”
Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This [The Mishnah which forbids harvesting any of the five kinds of grain before the ‘omer. The statement of R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa is in Sifra Wayiqra Paršata 13(5). The problem is Lev. 2:14–16, speaking of the cereal offering of first fruits. The verse cannot speak of individual first fruits (Deut. 26:1–11) since no cereal offering is connected with these. For any other cereal offering, the flour is specified. It is always wheat except for the ‘omer sheaf (Lev. 23:9–14) and the offering for the wife suspected of infidelity (Num. 5:15). Lev. 2:14 does not specify the kind of cereal for the offering. The cereal offering of first fruits is identified as the ‘omer offering; this determines the flour as barley flour.] is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife [In Sifra, the second argument also refers to the ‘omer.] is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse [The nature of the grain cut for the ‘omer is not specified in Lev. 23:9–14. But since the “new grain” for the cereal offering of the 50th day is specified as fine wheat flour, the earlier offering cannot possibly be wheat.] ; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”
Rebbi Yose said, who would think that Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi could think that the cereal offering of the ‘omer could come from spelt, foxtail, or oats? If somebody said, black figs are [forbidden] to me, is he not permitted white ones? But “black ones” he said, “white ones” he did not say. And here, “milky white barley” was said [Ex. 9:31. The first-grain cereal offering is described in Lev. 2:14 as “milky white, parched in fire.” The argument shows that the Mishnah can be the opinion of everybody. A similar argument is attributed in the Babli, Menaḥot 68b, to R. Eliezer.] , “milky white foxtail” was not said.
But for the rabbis they are three kinds! Oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail are a kind of barley [In Mishnah Kilaim 1:1, oats and spelt, barley and foxtail, are described as “not kilaim one with the other.” Therefore, they must be counted as one botanical species.] . The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Did we ever state: Five species? No, five kinds. Two times two kinds are one species.
There [Mishnah 4:2, which seems to contradict the statement of the Mishnah here that the five kinds of grains can be added together for the minimal amount needed for the obligation of ḥallah.] , we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites [If different doughs are placed together so they touch one another and, if separated again, small parts of one dough will cling to the other. Then all pieces together form one dough for ḥallah if made from compatible flours.] , here if it was mixed [If there is only one dough made from mixed flour, it is subject to ḥallah as if it were of homogeneous flour.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together [Since biting is a weak form of mixing, the rule of the Mishnah here applies only if the entire doughs are mixed, following R. Ḥiyya (the elder).] .
Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law [If somebody made a dough from different kinds of flour that cannot be combined according to Mishnah 4:2 and ate from the bread without taking ḥallah following Mishnah 1:1, he ate ṭevel. Can he be convicted and sentenced to be whipped on the testimony of two eye witnesses?] ? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law [Mishnah 4:2 is the biblical, Mishnah 1:1 the rabbinic standard.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed [Also quoted Babli Zebaḥim 75a. The Babli states that R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold (a) that different prohibitions are not cumulative but competing and (b) that criminal intent can only be proved by a warning that specifies the exact paragraph of the penal code the perpetrator was warned about; cf. Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 9. Here, R. Yose argues only about point (a), not (b).] : If somebody ground and mixed piggul [From the verse Lev. 19:6–7 it would seem that פגול (Arabic فجل “soft, mushy”) refers to sacrificial meat left after the time allotted for its consumption. However, since leftover meat already is forbidden in Lev. 7:17–18, פגול is defined as meat from sacrifices which were slaughtered with the intention of eating them outside the holy precinct. Similarly, “leftover” does not really denote leftover meat but meat from sacrifices slaughtered with the intention of eating them after the allotted time. Eating פיגול is a deadly sin, eating leftover meat a sin, and both invalidate the sacrifice. If the sacrifice was slaughtered correctly, then an accidental leftover or piece outside the precinct is still forbidden but does not invalidate the sacrifice.] and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another [If somebody makes chopped meat out of piggul and leftover in approximately equal amounts and then eats the volume of an olive of the mixture, for R. Joḥanan he ate a punishable amount of forbidden meat and committed a crime. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, he ate less than an olive-sized piece of either piggul or leftover and cannot be punished for either one.] . Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar [It is possible that R. Joḥanan agrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish about ḥallah.] . There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden [Eating from dry flour is not forbidden. The prohibition comes only with the obligation of ḥallah, with the production of dough ready to be baked. Therefore, the case here involves no competition of laws. However, if the dough is large enough that one single kind already would induce the obligation of ḥallah, then everybody agrees that eating the bread without taking ḥallah is a criminal act.] . If one made five doughs [Each one large enough to induce the obligation of ḥallah.] from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.
“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together [Also quoted in the Babli, Pesaḥim 115a, Zebaḥim 79a. It is written about the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:8): “They shall eat the meat in that night, roasted on the fire, and maẓẓot, on bitter herbs they shall eat it.” Similarly, it says about the second Passover (Num. 9:11): “They shall eat it on maẓẓot and bitter herbs.” Hillel held that this means one has to eat of meat, maẓẓah, and bitter herbs together in one bite.] .” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder [The Babli, Pesaḥim 115a, explains R. Joḥanan to say that in Temple times, when all three commandments are biblical, one has the choice to follow Hillel or eat the three ingredients separately. This cannot be the position of the Yerushalmi since then the discussion would not even start.] . But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs [In the Babli, Rav Ashi (who lived after the compilation of the Yerushalmi) rules that one eats twice, once each item singly and once as a sandwich. Naturally, there cannot be any meat mentioned here; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale NJ, 1995) pp. 332–338. Since R. Joḥanan here is accused of inconsistency, he cannot have followed the custom established by Rav Ashi.] ? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times [In the absence of a Temple, only maẓẓah is a biblical commandment since it is prescribed separately from any Temple service, Ex. 13:6–7. Bitter herbs are mentioned only as accessory to the sacrifice; therefore, today one eats bitter herbs purely as a remembrance of the Temple as rabbinical ordinance. R. Joḥanan must hold that a rabbinic ordinance cannot interfere with a biblical commandment. Therefore, it is possible to eat maẓẓah and bitter herbs together. But he holds that in Temple times, each of the three ingredients must be recognized by its taste. This position is the opposite of that of the Babli.] . Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. [This explains the rejection of Hillel’s position in Temple times. Since there are three biblical obligations, they cancel one another and none of them is fulfilled.] Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar [Babli Zebaḥim 79a. R. Eleazar supports R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish and his making a sandwich in the manner of Hillel. He must hold that R. Joḥanan reports that most authorities of Hillel’s time disagreed but he himself agrees.] : Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.
Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together [This paragraph is rather cryptic and each commentator has his own scenario to make sense of the text; Sefer Nir even has two radically different interpretations. Therefore, the interpretation given here must be considered as tentative. The first dough is made from five kinds of flour. But Mishnah 4:2 states that if dough is made from wheat and barley then all other kinds of grain add to the dough and cannot be treated separately (spelt adds to wheat and all except wheat add to barley). Therefore, the questions can be asked only about wheat and barley but not about the other three kinds. “Wheat” has to be interpreted as “wheat and spelt” and similarly for barley. The first dough is subject only to rabbinic ḥallah as explained above, Notes 44–45. The other doughs are too small to be subject to ḥallah by themselves. If they are taken together, does the wheat in the “rabbinic” dough prevent the pure wheat dough to be counted as biblically obligated?] . Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it [The answer to the preceding question is obviously “no”.] ? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together [The five doughs are all subject to ḥallah. Since they were obligated before being mixed, that obligation cannot go away, cf. Note 50.] and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together [These doughs are not subject to ḥallah before being put in contact with the large one.] . Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other [The question is not answered but since the preceding question was answered in the negative, it is implied that this one also is answered in the negative.] ?
“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover [Lev. 23:14.] .” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer [Lev. 23:14 reads: “Bread, parched and green grains you shall not eat until that day proper, until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice, a permanent rule for your generations in all your dwelling places.” Sifra Emor, Parašah 10(10) points out that the sacrifice must be the ‘omer, the sheaf of barley brought to the Temple. If it would refer to the accompanying sacrifice (v. 13), then “doing” would be used instead of “bringing (in from the outside)”. Since the two conditions, the day proper (the morning light) and the ‘omer, are formulated in parallel, rather than sequential, it is not clear which one is determining when there is a Temple. If there is no Temple, the day is determining by default. The position of Ḥizqiah seems to follow the simple meaning of the verse. Contrary arguments are detailed in the next paragraphs.] . He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice [When there is a Temple.] , the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits [The difference between R. Jonah and R. Yose is purely in the formulation. According to R. Yose, if there is no sacrifice the meaning of the verse is clear and does not need rabbinic interpretation. In the Babli (Menaḥot 68a), the position of Ḥizqiah is that of his cousin Rav and of Samuel.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits [In the Babli, Menaḥot 5a/b, 68a, R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.] .
Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 23:14): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing [Even R. Joḥanan will agree that new grain is not permitted early in the morning of the day after Passover. The Babli, Menaḥot 5a/b, holds that R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish hold that dawn is “the day proper” and new grain is permitted immediately.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden [Since the verse stated two conditions for permission to use new grain and in Temple times at dawn of the 16th of Nisan only one condition is satisfied, he holds that new grain still is forbidden, but not as a criminal act, until after the ‘omer was brought.] . How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words [As rabbinic decree.] . Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there [Mishnah Menaḥot 6:10, Babli Menaḥot 68b.] : “One may not bring cereal offerings [This can only be the cereal offering of the suspected wife (Num. 5:15), which is barley flour. All other cereal offerings are of wheat flour and these cannot be from new harvest until Pentecost (Rashi).] , first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices [These are always from wheat flour and cannot be from new grain even after the ‘omer. They are mentioned here only because of the next sentence in the Mishnah, not quoted here, that they may not be brought from new wheat before Pentecost but if brought are not invalid.] before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth [Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, his cousins and fellow students of their father.] . Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya [Of Nisan.] , he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow [Also follow. There would be no disagreement left.] Rebbi Joḥanan!
Did we not state [Mishnah Menaḥot 6(10):5; Sifra Emor Parašah 10(10); cf. Mishnah Sukkah 3:13, Roš Haššanah 4:3.] : “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation [The day of bringing the ‘omer. The language is from Lev. 23:11: “He shall elevate the sheaf before the Eternal for acceptance in your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the Cohen shall elevate it.”] should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine [As the Babli, Menaḥot 68b, puts it: Maybe the Temple will be rebuilt instantaneously by a miracle on the second day of Passover and then new grain will be forbidden by biblical law until the ‘omer can be brought.] . If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution [As a matter of principle, there should be no “fence” to guard against infringements of rabbinical decrees.] ? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away [They will not know when the ‘omer was presented and, since in classical times longitudes could not be determined with any degree of confidence, were not able to convert Jerusalem local time into their own local time.] .
Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah [The objection from the previous paragraph that the institution of Rabban Joḥanan makes sense only if the prohibition of new grain on the day of the ‘omer is biblical.] and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah [Mishnah Menaḥot 6(10):5; Sifra Emor Parašah 10(10). R. Jehudah interprets בעצם היום הזה as: “including the essence of the day”, meaning the entire day in the absence of the Temple (Rashi). The Babli, Menaḥot 68b, holds that Rabban Joḥanan agrees with R. Jehudah and, therefore, he did not institute a rabbinic decree but decreed the correct interpretation of the biblical law.] , since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.
There, they were apprehensive to have the great fast for two days [Since all holidays in the diaspora are two days, originally because the exact calendar dates could not quickly be transmitted from the Synhedrion to the diaspora. The Babli, Roš Haššanah 21a, reports that some rabbis in Babylonia fasted two consecutive days; the same is reported from early Medieval German rabbis.] . Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you bring yourselves into that great uncertainty [The “great uncertainty” is what in the Babli is called “possible danger to one’s life”.] . One may trust that the Court is never lazy [Since up to now it never happened that the first of Tishre was not the 30th of Elul (cf. Ševiït 10:2, p. 639), if it should happen the Synhedrion would immediately have sent signals to that effect.] . The father of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was apprehensive for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.
“If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation [The summer grain must have formed roots before the presentation of the ‘omer in the Temple. Rebbi Yose requires that the roots already be formed at the time of the harvesting of the barley sheaf, usually on the preceding evening. The Babli, Menaḥot 70b, quotes this tradition and the switched one in the inverse order of the Yerushalmi.] . Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing [He agrees that a private person may start harvesting the moment the sheaf has been cut for the Temple. Though usually one may not perform agricultural work on the intermediate days of a holiday, cutting new grain for the enjoyment of the holiday is permitted since it was impossible to do so before the holiday. But the Temple will not accept a barley cereal offering from new grain before the presentation of the ‘omer. If the barley cut for the Temple became impure before presentation, it cannot be used and its cutting retroactively is invalid. {While the barley and its flour never became wetted, putting the flour in a Temple vessel prepares it for impurity.}] , cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.
Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said (Lev. 214): “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits [This is the sheaf of barley, cf. Notes 35, 63.] to the Eternal.” This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ‘omer comes and permits it. Do we not hold before cutting [As usual, the argument is from a part of the verse which is not quoted explicitly: “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal; milky white roasted in fire, farina from soft kernels you should bring as cereal offering to your God.” The verse prescribes that the barley after cutting must be threshed, roasted, and milled before presentation. But the expression “milky white” specifies which plants are sufficiently ripened to be candidates for cutting. Therefore, the verse must speak of the time of cutting.] ? In addition, from the following which was stated [In the Babli (Pesaḥim 55a), the baraita is in the name of R. Jehudah who states in Mishnah Ševiït 2:6 that any transplant which does not form roots in three days will not survive.] : “If somebody weeds on the thirteenth and a stalk remains in his hand, he should replant it in a moist spot but not a dry one.” Here you have the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, and part of a day is counted as whole [If the action of the ‘omer would be counted from presentation, then replanting on the 14th would still leave three days, part of 14th, 15th, part of 16th, to form a root. Since the baraita specifies the 13th as last day for replanting, it follows that the operative time of the ‘omer is early in the night of the 16th, the time of cutting the barley.] .
Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Abinna supports me, since Rebbi Abinna said, explain it [Mishnah Pesaḥim 4:1 states: “In a place where one is used to work in the morning of the 14th [of Nisan], one may work; in a place where one is not used to work in the morning of the 14th [of Nisan], one may not work.” If work on the 14th is forbidden, it is obvious that the 13th is the last day for weeding and the baraita quoted in the preceding paragraph does not prove anything about the ‘omer. Since it is stated that one may replant on the 14th, it follows that only the presentation of the ‘omer is relevant.] following this baraita: “In a place where one does not usually work on the 14th, but not in a place where one is used to work on the 14th.” If it is cut; maybe also when it is standing [An objection by R. Jonah. Maybe agricultural work, while permitted on the morning of the 14th, is restricted.] ? It was found stated [Tosephta Pesaḥim 3:18: “In a place where one is used to work on standing grain on the 14th until noon, one may do so.”] : “In a place where people are used to work on cut produce, one may work even on standing grain.”
“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they [If it is barley.] be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so [In this version, nothing sown before the New Year can be used for the ‘omer.] ? They objected, are there not the other kinds [All grains which are not barley.] which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable [It is explained in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 15(1) that “first fruits” is a requirement that is waived if no ripe barley is found in the fields by Passover. Since it can be disregarded under certain circumstances this cannot be an absolute requirement.] . The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya [He is R. Abin bar Ḥiyya, student of R. Zeïra.] That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.
MISHNAH: If somebody eats the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them [The five kinds mentioned in Mishnah 1.] on Passover [More exactly, the first night of the holiday as spelled out in Ex. 12:18: “In the evening you have to eat maẓẓah.” The remaining days of Passover, leavened bread is forbidden but maẓẓah is not required; one might live without bread.] , he did his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened [bread], he is subject to being cut off [Ex. 12:19. The punishment of “being cut off” is divine punishment, not of the earthly court.] . If one of them is mixed with other kinds [It is sinful to keep on Passover any leavened mixture made from flour of one of the five kinds mixed with other edible material.] one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce [In the talmudic vocabulary, תבואה only means “grain.” But as shown in Halakhah 3, in biblical language the word means “any agricultural yield.”] is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these [This is a shortened version of Mishnah Nedarim 7:2: “He who takes a vow not to use flour is forbidden even dry Egyptian bean, the words of R. Meïr; but the Sages say, he is only forbidden the five kinds. R. Meïr says, he who takes a vow not to use grain is forbidden only the five kinds.”] . They are subject to ḥallah and tithes [As a matter of biblical law.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one whips because of their ḥallah as a word of the Torah [The language of the Mishnah, “the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them”, seems to mean that a maẓẓah made of mixed dough is acceptable on Passover and subject to ḥallah by biblical decree. This contradicts R. Simeon ben Laqish (Note 51) who held that different kinds, each of which measures less than the necessary volume, cannot be taken together to be subject to biblical ḥallah.] . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say one volume of an olive of all of them. It is different since the category of “leavened” applies to all of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted. There [Each one large enough to induce the obligation of ḥallah.] , he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another. [The argument is accepted; the Mishnah permits mixed maẓẓah on Passover only if at least one kind of grain is present in a sufficient amount for an acceptable maẓẓah by itself.] ”
[Here begins the discussion of the statement about vows.] Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything [Everything vegetal.] according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written (Deut. 22:9): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread” [Spelt or oatmeal bread would have to be called spelt-bread or oatmeal-bread buit never “bread” without a qualifier.] . Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all [kinds], only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread”.
MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah [Cf. 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 property [Cf. Peah 6, Note 1, for the exemption from heave and tithes.] , First tithe of which its heave had been taken [This 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 redeemed [But 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 ‘omer [The 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 ripe [According 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, legumes [Anything 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 grain [A dough made with more than this volume of flour is subject to ḥallah; Mishnah and Halakhah 2:6.] . Bismarcks [The 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 cakes [Defined 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 cakes [Greek, [ἄρτος] ἐσχαρίτης, ὁ, “[bread] baked over the fire”.] , pancakes [Cf. 2S. 13:9.] , and dema‘ [Profane and heave mixed together, forbidden to all but Cohanim.] are free from ḥallah.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.” [“It shall be when you eat from the bread of the Land, you shall lift a heave for the Eternal. The first of your doughs, ḥallah you shall lift as heave, as the heave of the threshing floor so you shall lift it.” At first glance, the second verse seems to imply that anything exempt from great heave should be exempt from ḥallah. Cahana assumes that R. Hoshaiah’s question was, why should the items enumerated in the Mishnah ever be subject to ḥallah?] He came back and said, from 14 [years] [The years of conquest and distribution under Joshua, when they ate from the bread of the Land but did not harvest themselves. Cf. Seder Olam11 [in the author’s edition (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 116–117, Note 2]; ‘Orlah1:2, Note 55.] . Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.
[Terumot 1, Note 159.] Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal. There is no difference between gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah [All poor are entitled to these, irrespective of their tribal affiliation.] , and abandoned property.
“First tithe of which its heave had been taken;” since its heave was taken, is it not like profane? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave [Babli Berakhot47a,Šabbat 127b, Eruvin 31b, Pesaḥim 35b, Beẓah13b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish; Yerushalmi Bikkurim 2:3, 2:4 (fol. 65a).] . Rebbi Yose said, it is written [The two verses quoted are written about heave of the tithe. The MT of 18:28 reads מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ.] (Num. 18:29): “From all its best, the holy part from it;” not its best and the best of another person. Rebbi Yose said, it is written (Num. 18:26): “You shall lift from it the heave of the Eternal, tithe of the tithe,” but not heave and tithe from the tithe. When he [The Levite who threshed the ears given to him as tithe.] made a heap and then gave its heave of the tithe. But if he gave heave of the tithe and then made a heap [This starts the obligation of heave which then must be given. In the Babli, this is an observation ascribed to Abbaye.] this does not apply. When he gave from itself for it, but if he gave from another place [This is permitted but then it is not “from it”; the verses do not apply.] this does not apply.
“Second Tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed [But 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.] ”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rebbi Hillel ben Vales [The name appears as הליס, אליס, ולס.] argued in the name of Rebbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave” [The Mishnah states that redeemed second tithe is obligated for ḥallah but free from tithe. How can tithe be free from tithe? It must be that it is not free from tithe but from heave which is subsumed under the name of tithes.] .
Rebbi Jonah asked: Following him who holds that it is not like his property [But 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.] ; but following him who holds it is like his property he must be obligated [If second tithe is the farmer’s property even before redemption, then redemption should make no difference in the obligation of ḥallah. This means that the Mishnah is R. Meïr’s; it cannot follow R. Jehudah.] . He [An unidentified person; probably it is R. Jonah’s usual partner R. Yose.] said to him, I also am of this opinion. For second tithe, since everybody agrees that it is like his property, he is obligated, there is a disagreement. For him who holds it is obligated [While everybody agrees that early first tithe preempts heave, nothing has been said about second tithe given early. If early second tithe is subject to heave, any dough made from it is subject to ḥallah, including what still has to be given as heave.] , even its heave is obligated. For him who holds it is free [The only second tithe that possibly is free is unredeemed second tithe consumed in Jerusalem. For him who holds it is Heaven’s property, any second tithe dough in Jerusalem is exempt from ḥallah.] , even its profane part is free.
For him who holds it is obligated [Early Second Tithe obligated for heave. It was established in Terumot 2:1 that heave of the tithe may be given from one batch for an unrelated batch.] , if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ [Profane mixed with heave; cf. Terumot 3:2.] or like a dough which became dema‘ [Which is exempt from ḥallah, cf. Mishnah 4.] ? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave [The Constantinople print (Benvenist) has this as a declarative sentence: “It is heave.” The heap of sheaves is not processed but if heave is given, automatically all tithes are also due.] ? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated [A (sufficiently large) bread dough is potentially obligated for ḥallah the moment it is no longer dry flour.] is not ḥallah as we have stated there [Mishnah 2:5.] : “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. [The two cases have been explained but the original question was not answered.] ”
“The excess of the ‘omer.” The Mishnah is not Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba makes it liable for heave and tithes [Mishnah Menaḥot 10(6):4; Babli Menaḥot 66b–67a.] .
“And grain not yet one-third ripe”. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Bread” is mentioned in connection with Passover and “bread” is mentioned in connection with ḥallah. “Bread” mentioned in connection with Passover includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened, [therefore] also “bread” mentioned in connection with ḥallah includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened [According 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.] . What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reasoning? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like heave from the threshing floor.” Since heave from the threshing floor is only from produce at least one-third ripe [Cf. Ma‘serot 1:3, Note 78.] , that also is only from produce at least one-third ripe. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have “bread, bread [If there is an established tradition that the word “bread” means the same in both cases, R. Eleazar also must agree that the same standard applies in both cases.] ”? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It [Bread or dough made from flour milled from grain not yet one-third ripe.] is not subject to ḥallah and nobody can use it to fulfill his duty on Passover.
[This formulation is exactly the inverse of the same argument in Halakhah 1, Note 23.] Is one guilty for bread from it because of new grain? Rebbi Yudan said, it is written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” Anything for whose parched grain you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for bread because of new grain; but anything for whose parched grain you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for bread because of new grain.
[Ma‘serot 1:3, Note 78.] Rebbi Zeïra said: It is written (Deut 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all your seed-yield.” Anything which will grow when sown; this excludes seeds less than one-third ripe which when sown will not grow.
It is obvious: For the rabbis, that “less than a third” is not dragged in concerning the matter of tithes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rebbi Eleazar, is it dragged in in the matter of ḥallah like a rice dough [Since grain less than one-third ripe is not subject to tithes, if such grain is mixed with ripe grain, only the ripe grain is subject to heave and tithes. The green kernels cannot become subject to tithes. Cf. Note 22. On the other hand, it is stated in Mishnah 3:6 that if a dough made from rice and grain tastes of grain, the entire dough is obligated for ḥallah and the bread baked from it is acceptable for Passover.] ? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for ḥallah [It is forbidden to give heave from the new harvest for last year’s. Since ḥallah is called heave, how does one treat dough made from flour which is a mixture of last year’s and this year’s grain? No answer is given; it seems obvious that one does not have to investigate the origin of the flour one buys on the market.] ? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for ḥallah [According to the rabbis, flour from both fields is subject to ḥallah when made into a dough but only the riper one is subject to heave and tithes.] and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses [The grain seeds are somehow used to make flour. That flour cannot be measured in the minimal amount needed for ḥallah (Mishnah 2:6). But as human food it is subject to (rabbinic) tithes.] are two for ḥallah and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for ḥallah and tithes.
What are the rules “in between” [In between obligations, if dough is made from flour that is not totally profane.] ? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state [All prior obligations also fall on the ḥallah taken from the dough.] . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? [Cf. Demay 5:1, Notes 23 ff.; Tosephta Terumot 4:10.] If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. From where that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (Num. 15:20) “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,” from ḥallah you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to ḥallah? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift ḥallah” [The full verses read: “The beginning of your doughs, ḥallah you shall lift heave; like heave of the barn, so you shall lift it. From the beginning of your doughs you shall give a heave to the Eternal, for your generations.” The second verse states that ḥallah is due as a heave from the moment the kneading of the dough starts. But then the first “beginning” is redundant; it is taken to refer to actual heave which is called “beginning” in Num. 18:12. Then the second clause of the first verse is read not “ḥallah you shall lift [as] heave” but “[from] ḥallah you shall lift heave.”] .
Bismarcks are tracta [Latin tractum, tracta, Greek τρακτόν, τό, “long piece of dough drawn out in making pastry” (Liddell & Scott). Mentioned in Apicius (De re coquinaria, Ed. M. E. Milham, Leipzig 1969) Bk. IV iii as used in serving fish, Bk. Vil using “three small tracta balls” for pultes tractogalatae.] . Honey cakes μελίγαλα [“Honey-milk” baked goods.] . Ὲσχαρίτης are bake-meats [The root of חליטה seems to be Arabic ח̇לט “to mix”, from which Arabic מַח̇לוּטָא “baked from a mixture of lentils, peas, and farina.” The Babli, Pesaḥim37a, defines חַלַּת מַסְרֵת as “non-commercial חָלוּט”; a better opposite to “commercial חלוּט” of the Yerushalmi. The Babli, Pesaḥim 37b, also defines חלוּט as “dough cooked by pouring boiling water over it” in contrast to מעיסה “dumpling” made by dropping lumps of dough into boiling water but the Yerushalmi (Halakhah 7) switches the meanings of both terms.] of the market, pancakes dumplings in water.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah [The obvious contradiction to the Mishnah is resolved in the next paragraph.] , one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth, [The benediction required for bread and bread alone; Berakhot 6:1.] ” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it [To eat maẓẓah defined as unleavened bread; cf. Note 15.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything [Every dough baked in an oven. Their ovens were shaped as conical frustums, where the dough was clinging to the inclined wall directly over the fire.] under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid [Dough baked in a pan whose bottom is filled with liquid (including oil) cannot become bread.] .
The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun [He restricts the Mishnah to that unlikely case; this is accepted in the Babli, Pesaḥim 37a. A Genizah text has a more complete version: פתר לה בסופגנים שנעשו בחמה. ותני כן יוצאים בסופגנים שנעשו באור ואין וצאים בסופגנים שנעשו בחמה “He explains it for Bismarcks baked by the sun. It was stated thus (Tosephta Pisḥa 2:19): One may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on fire but one may not fulfill one’s obligation by Bismarcks baked in the sun.”] ; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides [Since the oven is much larger at the botton than in the upper part where the bread is baked, the heat comes from all sides. R. Simeon considers baking with heat coming just from one direction as cooking, not baking. In the Babli, Pesaḥim 37b, R. Simeon defines as cooking anything prepared in a vessel in the oven; he accepts as baking only what is in the oven without any vessel. This may be the same as his opinion explained here.] .
[This paragraph appears, with minor spelling differences, in Terumot 4 and was explained there, Notes 76–81.] The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: Is it different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.
“Less than five quarter [qab] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [qab] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply [This is implied by the Mishnah which exempts only volumes strictly less that /4 qab, against the opinion of R. Yose (Mishnah Idiut 1:2) who requires strictly more than /4 qab.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, dema‘ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible dema‘ [If there were two boxes and heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which, the contents of both must be eaten by Cohanim but are not exempt from ḥallah.] and is eaten because of dema‘ [It seems that in the text one should read סָפֵק מְדוּמָע נֶאֱכַל מִשּׁוּם דִּימּוּעַ חַייָב בַּחַלָּה as in Tosephta Ḥallah 1:5, Terumot 7:8.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [qab], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.
MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. [According to Maimonides, only if baked in the sun.] If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot [A word of unknown etymology, cf. Note 182. {Perhaps cf. Latin clibanicius (viz., panis) “bread baked in a clibanus, an earthen or iron vessel for baking bread; oven, furnace” (Lewis & Short) (E. G.).}] are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it [In both cases, the dough will be baked in the end. In the Babli, Pesaḥim 37b, the definition of מעיסה and חליטה are switched; the Babli essentially follows the Yerushalmi here. The disagreement of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai is also quoted in Mishnah Idiut 5:2.] . The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice [Lev. 7:12.] and those needed by the nazir [Num. 6:15.] , if he made them for himself they are exempt [Since they are dedicated when baking they are exempt as sacrifice.] , to sell on the market obligated.
HALAKHAH: A woman asked Rebbi Mana: Since I want to make iṭry [Cf. Greek ἴτριον “a kind of cake;” in later usage, any cake (L.&S.). In Modern Hebrew, איטריות are “noodles”; cf. Arabic اطرية “vermicelli”.] in my kneading-trough, may I take from it so that it should be free from ḥallah [While the total dough in the trough is more than the minimum for ḥallah, the dough taken to make bread will be less than the minimum. This should be exempt from ḥallah.] ? He said to her, why not? He went to ask his father [R. Jonah.] . He said to him, it is forbidden; maybe she would change her mind to use it [More than the minimum for ḥallah.] as bread dough.
“Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated”. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zwieback. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Agul in the name of Ḥizqiah said boqrlṭa. That you should not [J. N. Epstein [Tarbiz 1(1929) p. 124–125] identifies קרמביטס as Greek κράμβιτας “Zwieback” {cf. Greek κραμβαλέος “dried, parched, roasted” (E. G.)} and בוקרלטא (in the Peterburg fragment בוקולתא) as Greek βούκκελλα {really from the Latin bucella (E. G.)} “small loaf”). The following is the text of Or Zaru‘a (R. Isaac from Vienna, 13th Cent.; §219): הַקְּנוּבְקָאוֹת חַייָבוֹת בחלה. פירש רבנוּ יצחק מסימפונט אין ידוע לנו ומסתבר עוֹשׂין אוֹתוֹ מן [הקמח] ואוֹפין אוֹתוֹ בשמש אוֹ בתנוּר וּכשרוֹצה סוֹלת כוֹתשין אוֹתוֹ אפילוּ הכי חייבת בחלה. ירוּשלמי׃ וכן הַקְּנוּבְקָאוֹת חַייָבוֹת בחלה ר׳ חנינא בר עיגול בשם חזקיה שקילטא שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא עָתִיד לְהַחֲזִירָהּ לְסוֹלְתָהּ תְּהֵא פְטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. “qenubqa’ot are obligated for ḥallah. R. Isaac Simponti explains that we do not know what it is but it seems that one makes it from [flour], bakes it in the sun or the oven, and if one needs farina one pounds it; nevertheless it is obligated for ḥallah. Yerushalmi: ‘Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated for ḥallah. R. Ḥanina bar ‘Agil in the name of Ḥizqiah, šqylṭ’; that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah.’ ” In the Wilna Talmud edition of R. Isaac Simponti בן קלטא instead of שקלטא. There, he adds: “In our language (Italian) one calls loaves made in ring form בנקלטא”. There is no reasonable conjecture about the meaning of שקילטא, but בנקלטא probably should be read בוקלטא parallel to the reading of the Geniza fragment. The Arukh defines qenubqa’ot by Italian mostaccioli (from mostaccio “snout”), a kind of ginger-bread cookie. R. Ḥanina bar ‘Agil was a third generation Galilean Amora who is quoted elsewhere in the Yerushalmi as transmitting statements of Ḥizqiah (Yebamot 6:6) and in the Babli as asking R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.] say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, dough for the sick is obligated for ḥallah, that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah.
Rav said, dough for kutaḥ [A Babylonian specialty cheese for which the active bacteria come from mold growing on bread. If the bread is never intended to be eaten, it should be exempt from ḥallah. In the Babli (Berakhot 37b/38a), R. Ḥiyya is quoted that such dough is exempt. The statement is then explained away because if one makes bread to grow mold, it is subject to ḥallah but if the mold is grown on a kind of porridge it is exempt.] is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Abun said, perhaps she will change her mind to make it white Zwieback. Rebbi Mana said, we have to announce publicly that those who make ‘abiṣin [In the Babli, חביצין, Arabic خبيص, baked starch with milk and dates.] should make less than the measure since they think it is exempt but it is obligated.
It was stated [Tosephta 1:1. The Babli quotes this in the opposite way (cf. Note 164) and insists that the water be not just hot but boiling.] : “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: What is parboiled? If one adds hot water to flour. Dumpling, flour into hot water.”
Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt [Flour dumped into boiling water can become cooked and edible; if boiling water is poured over flour, the dough needs baking. It would be reasonable to require ḥallah in the second case; why do they require it only in the first?] ? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this [The Mishnah is composed of two incongruous pieces. There is no difference in the rules between parboiled flour and dumplings, but one student holds that the House of Shammai forbids and that of Hillel permits (both for חליטה and מעיסה) while the other holds that the House of Hillel forbids and the House of Shammai permits.] . Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea [Caesarea Philippi.] and he said to me, two students stated this.
“ [Continuation of Tosephta 1:1.] But the Sages say, not following either one of them [Of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai.] , but what was baked in the oven is obligated, in a pan or a pot is free.”
What is certainly parboiled [If it was cooked in boiling water, it is exempt from ḥallah.] ? Rebbi Zeïra said, everything the fire burns under. Rebbi Yose said, even if the fire burns under it, since he will use it as dough in the future it is obligated for ḥallah [Anything that may be used in a bread dough, even if baked completely as, e. g., matzah meal, is subject to ḥallah when first made.] . Roasted flour which he used as flour is obligated for ḥallah. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he baked it.
“The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt,” for it is written [Num. 15:20. The sentence as addressed to the people, not to the priests of he Temple all whose food is dedicated.] “the first of your baking troughs;” “to sell on the market he is obligated”, it does not depend on his intention but on that of his customers. Maybe he will find a customer; therefore, it becomes ṭevel immediately [The same argument is found in Ma‘serot 1:5, cf. there, Note 115, 125.] .
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. [This 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 /4 qab of flour.] A dog biscuit, if the shepherds eat from it, is obligated for ḥallah [Since 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 participation [To 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 it [The blessing “Who produced bread from the earth” appropriate for bread; Mishnah Berakhot 6:1.] and one invites [To 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 holiday [Since 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 Passover [If 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 food [Animal 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 him [The 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 was [This 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 cracknels [Arabic 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 so [Tosephta 1:6, in the name of R. Jehudah, reading of the Erfurt ms.] : “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected [Several loaves connected together; from a Hebrew root למד “to connect”, cf. S. Krauss’s Note to Arukh s. v. למד.] 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 rolls [Greek κόλλιξ; cf. Berakhot 6, Note 103.] . But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it? [It 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 it [One 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 stated [Tosefta 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 pot [Latin 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. [Since 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 maẓẓah [The 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. [Usually, 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 obligation [The 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 deed [A 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 sin [He 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 deeds [He sides with R. Jonah against R. Yose.] .
MISHNAH: Ḥallah and heave. [Most of these rules have been spelled out for heave in Tractate Terumot; the sentence spells out that ḥallah is not only called “heave” (Num. 15:20–21) but actually follows all rules of heave.] About them one is liable to death [Lev. 22:3.] and a fifth [Terumot 6:1.] , they are forbidden to laymen [Lev. 22:10. Since this rule is mentioned after the penalties, it must mean that consumption by laymen of quantities too small to merit judicial attention is still forbidden.] , are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101 [Terumot Chapter 5.] , need washing of the hands [An extension of the injunction Ex. 30:17–21.] (and feet) [A scribal error in the ms. and some sources dependent on it; cf. The Mishnah with variant readings, Zera‘im II (Jerusalem 1975), p. 325, Note 74.] and sundown [Lev. 22:7.] , are not taken from pure for impure [Terumot 2:1.] but only from what is earmarked [Terumot 1:1, Note 6.] and completed [Completely processed; Ma‘serot 1.] . He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is ḥallah did not say anything unless he left out a small amount.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, ḥallah might be profane [One might think that the root of the word חלה is (rabbinic) חול (Arabic حلّ) “to be permitted, to be profane”.] , I would say it is permitted to wait [“To roll around”, used to characterize long drawn-out processes. Since ḥallah is invalidated by impurity, it should be delivered to a Cohen at the first opportunity.] with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth”.
Ten commandments does a person fulfill before he eats a piece of bread: Do not plough [“With ox and donkey together”, Deut. 22:10.] , do now sow [“Your field do not sow as kilaim”, Lev. 25:4.] , do not muzzle [“Your ox while threshing”, Deut. 25:4.] , gleanings [Lev. 19:9.] , forgotten sheaves [Deut. 24:14.] , and peah [This paragraph is a truncated quote from Ma‘aser Šeni Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” …] , heave, first tithe, second tithe, and ḥallah. Before Rebbi Isaac went to dinner, he spread out his ten fingers and said, I kept ten commandments.
[This paragraph is a truncated quote from Ma‘aser Šeni Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” …] “Ḥallah for all, heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (Num. 15:21): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning.