Menachot 67
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “To my extraordinary teacher and chevruta: She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey. All of my learning is dedicated to her.”
Menachot 67
גִּלְגּוּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ פּוֹטֵר, דִּתְנַן: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ עִיסָּתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה וּפְדָאַתָּה – חַיֶּיבֶת, מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה וּפְדָאַתָּה – חַיֶּיבֶת, הִקְדִּישָׁהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה, וְגִלְגְּלָהּ הַגִּזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדָאַתָּה – פְּטוּרָה, שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת חוֹבָתָהּ הָיְתָה פְּטוּרָה.
Rava adds: The kneading of consecrated dough exempts it from the obligation of ḥalla, as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 3:3): If a woman consecrated her dough before she kneaded it and she subsequently redeemed it, she is obligated to separate ḥalla. Likewise, if she consecrated it after she kneaded it and then she redeemed it, she is obligated to separate ḥalla. But if she consecrated the dough before she kneaded it and the Temple treasurer kneaded it and then she subsequently redeemed it, she is exempt. The reason is that at the time that its obligation in ḥalla would have taken effect, i.e., at the time of its kneading, it was exempt, because it was Temple property.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: גִּלְגּוּל גּוֹי מַאי? מִיתְנָא תְּנַן: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ עִיסָּה, נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – חַיָּיב.
Rava raises a dilemma: If dough was kneaded while in the possession of a gentile, what is its status? Is one who acquires it after it has been kneaded obligated to separate ḥalla from it or not? The Gemara answers that this is taught explicitly, as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 3:6): With regard to a convert who converted and had dough in his possession, if it was prepared before he converted, he is exempt from the obligation of ḥalla. If it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated. If he is uncertain, he is obligated.
הָא מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָמְחַיְּיבִי הָתָם – פָּטְרִי הָכָא.
The Gemara asks: Of the Sages who disagreed with regard to the obligation to tithe grain that is smoothed by a gentile, who taught this mishna with regard to ḥalla? Perhaps it is a ruling upon which everyone agrees, and even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, who obligate there, in the case of tithes, exempt here in the case of ḥalla.
הָתָם הוּא, דִכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״, ״דְּגָנְךָ״ יַתִּירָא.
The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to teruma that contain the term “your grain.” They are: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); “And you shall eat before the Lord your God…the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); and “The first fruits of your grain…you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). It can therefore be claimed that only there Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that one is obligated to separate tithes from grain that was owned by a gentile, as in addition to the first reference to “your grain,” which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Temple’s possession, it is written an additional “your grain,” and then another reference to “your grain.”
הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.
The Gemara elaborates: This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to include additional cases. In this case, the verses teach that even grain that belonged to gentiles is obligated in the separation of tithes.
אֲבָל הָכָא, תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּתִיב, חַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּדֵי עִיסַּתְכֶם, וְחַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ וְלֹא עִיסַּת גּוֹיִם וְלֹא עִיסַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
But here, with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla, the term “your dough” is written only twice: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift; as that which is set apart of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart. Of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:20–21). One reference to “your dough” teaches that one is obligated to separate ḥalla only from an amount equal to your dough in the wilderness, where the mitzva was commanded, i.e., the volume of one omer. And one reference to “your dough” teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated property.
אוֹ דִלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּקָא פָּטְרִי, אֲבָל רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה גָּמְרִי ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵהָתָם.
The Gemara continues: Or perhaps it is Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon who taught that mishna, as they maintain that grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, and likewise dough kneaded by a gentile owner is likewise exempt from the obligation to separate ḥalla. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive by way of verbal analogy the halakha with regard to ḥalla, concerning which it is written: “Of the first of your dough,” from the same expression that appears there, with regard to tithes: “The first fruits of your grain.” Just as in the case of tithes they hold that one is obligated to separate the tithes from a pile of grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner, so too they hold that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner.
אָמַר רָבָא: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּאֶחְזְיֵהּ בְּחֶילְמָא. הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר – גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר, מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר – גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר.
Rava said: May it be God’s will that I see the answer to my question in a dream. Rava then said: The one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from any obligation to separate ḥalla. So too the one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate ḥalla.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וְחַלָּה, מוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, וְחַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד בּוֹ.
Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 4:13): With regard to a gentile who separated a lamb in order to redeem a firstborn donkey, or if he separated ḥalla from dough that he kneaded, one informs him that he is exempt from these obligations and his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests and the lamb designated to redeem his firstborn donkey may be sheared and worked.
הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, וְגִלְגּוּל גּוֹי פּוֹטֵר.
One can infer: But if a gentile separated teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, from a grain pile that he smoothed, his teruma is prohibited to a non-priest. And this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, as the same halakhot apply to tithes as to teruma, and yet he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate ḥalla. This refutes Rava’s conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to ḥalla.
וְעוֹד אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: חַלַּת גּוֹי בָּאָרֶץ, וּתְרוּמָתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, חַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּתְרוּמָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ – אֲסוּרָה וּמְדַמַּעַת.
And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to ḥalla of a gentile that he separated after kneading his dough in Eretz Yisrael, or his teruma that he separated after smoothing his pile of grain outside Eretz Yisrael, in both cases one informs him that he is exempt from those obligations and his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests and his teruma does not render a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce. One can infer: But his teruma from his grain in Eretz Yisrael is prohibited to non-priests and renders a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce.
וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר!
The Gemara explains the objection: And again this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, and nevertheless he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate ḥalla.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם בַּעֲלֵי כִיסִים.
The Gemara answers: This ruling that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does not exempt it from the obligations of teruma and tithes applies only by rabbinic law. By Torah law, the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does exempt it from the obligation to separate teruma and tithes. The Sages enacted a decree due to the schemes of people of means. There was a fear that conniving merchants might temporarily transfer ownership of their produce to gentiles while the piles were smoothed, after which the gentiles would return them to their possession, thereby circumventing the obligation to separate teruma and tithes.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי? אֶפְשָׁר דְּאָפֵי לָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח, וְעוֹד.
The Gemara asks: If so, then ḥalla should be subject to the same rabbinic decree as well, to prevent someone from circumventing their obligation to separate ḥalla by temporarily selling their dough to a gentile who will knead it and return it to them. Why then does the baraita teach that dough kneaded by a gentile owner is exempt? The Gemara answers: There is no need for a decree in this case, since if one wanted to circumvent his obligation to separate ḥalla from his dough, an easier method is available: It is possible for him to bake using less than five-fourths of a kav of flour and a bit more, the minimum amount necessitating the separation of ḥalla.
תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד לַהּ כִּדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַעֲרִים אָדָם עַל תְּבוּאָתוֹ וּמַכְנִיסָהּ בַּמּוֹץ שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אִי נָמֵי, דְּעַיֵּיל לַהּ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ קַרְפֵּיפוֹת?
The Gemara asks: If so, why is there a need for a rabbinic decree with regard to teruma and tithes? The obligation to separate teruma and tithes can also be easily circumvented by acting in accordance with that which Rabbi Oshaya suggested, as Rabbi Oshaya says: A person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and exempt himself by bringing it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from teruma and tithes. Although the obligation to separate teruma from and to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. Alternatively, another option of avoiding the obligation of teruma and tithes is to bring in the produce to his house by way of roofs or by way of enclosures [karpeifot]. The obligation of teruma and tithes applies only to produce that passes through the entrance of the house.
הָתָם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא; הָכָא בְּצִינְעָא, לָא זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא.
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of teruma and tithes, the two options of bringing in the grain in its chaff or by way of roofs are performed in public [befarhesya], and it is degrading for one to be seen circumventing his obligation. Consequently, one who wishes to avoid the obligation would prefer the option of transferring ownership to a gentile, which the Sages prevent with their decree. Here, in the case of ḥalla, the option of baking with less than the minimum quantity of flour to avoid being obligated to separate ḥalla from the dough is performed in private, and it is not degrading for him, and he would sooner take advantage of that option than go through the process of transferring the dough to a gentile. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree in this case.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּא לוֹ לָעִשָּׂרוֹן, נָתַן עָלָיו שַׁמְנוֹ וּלְבוֹנָתוֹ, יָצַק וּבָלַל, הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
MISHNA: After daybreak, the priest sacrificing the omer came to the sifted tenth of an ephah, placed in the vessel in his hand some of its log of oil, and placed its frankincense on the side of the vessel. He then poured some more oil from the log onto the high-quality flour and mixed them together, waved and brought the meal offering to the corner of the altar, and removed the handful and burned it on the altar. And the rest of the meal offering is eaten by the priests.
מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר, יוֹצְאִין וּמוֹצְאִין שׁוּק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא קֶמַח קָלִי, שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין.
Once the omer was sacrificed people would emerge and find the marketplace of Jerusalem full of the flour from the parched grain of the new crop that was permitted by the waving and the sacrifice of the omer offering. That filling of the marketplace with the new crop was performed not with the approval of the Sages; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They would do so with the approval of the Sages.
גְּמָ׳ וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the marketplaces of Jerusalem would be filled with flour of parched grain even before the sacrificing of the omer offering, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Sages approved of this practice. The Gemara asks: And doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued a decree against filling of the marketplaces with grain that is prohibited in consumption at the time? Wasn’t he concerned that perhaps someone might come to eat from it?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית, וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בָּדַק כּוּ׳.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesaḥim 10b): Rabbi Yehuda says that one searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the eradication of leaven. And the Rabbis say: That is not the halakha; rather, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day, and if he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. Since Rabbi Yehuda does not allow a search on Passover itself, he is evidently concerned that one who finds prohibited food might come to eat it. The same reasoning should apply in the case of the new crop.
אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁאנֵי חָדָשׁ,
Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Berlin, Germany
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Los Angeles, United States
Menachot 67
גִּלְגּוּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ פּוֹטֵר, דִּתְנַן: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ עִיסָּתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה וּפְדָאַתָּה – חַיֶּיבֶת, מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה וּפְדָאַתָּה – חַיֶּיבֶת, הִקְדִּישָׁהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה, וְגִלְגְּלָהּ הַגִּזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדָאַתָּה – פְּטוּרָה, שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת חוֹבָתָהּ הָיְתָה פְּטוּרָה.
Rava adds: The kneading of consecrated dough exempts it from the obligation of ḥalla, as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 3:3): If a woman consecrated her dough before she kneaded it and she subsequently redeemed it, she is obligated to separate ḥalla. Likewise, if she consecrated it after she kneaded it and then she redeemed it, she is obligated to separate ḥalla. But if she consecrated the dough before she kneaded it and the Temple treasurer kneaded it and then she subsequently redeemed it, she is exempt. The reason is that at the time that its obligation in ḥalla would have taken effect, i.e., at the time of its kneading, it was exempt, because it was Temple property.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: גִּלְגּוּל גּוֹי מַאי? מִיתְנָא תְּנַן: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ עִיסָּה, נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – חַיָּיב.
Rava raises a dilemma: If dough was kneaded while in the possession of a gentile, what is its status? Is one who acquires it after it has been kneaded obligated to separate ḥalla from it or not? The Gemara answers that this is taught explicitly, as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 3:6): With regard to a convert who converted and had dough in his possession, if it was prepared before he converted, he is exempt from the obligation of ḥalla. If it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated. If he is uncertain, he is obligated.
הָא מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָמְחַיְּיבִי הָתָם – פָּטְרִי הָכָא.
The Gemara asks: Of the Sages who disagreed with regard to the obligation to tithe grain that is smoothed by a gentile, who taught this mishna with regard to ḥalla? Perhaps it is a ruling upon which everyone agrees, and even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, who obligate there, in the case of tithes, exempt here in the case of ḥalla.
הָתָם הוּא, דִכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״, ״דְּגָנְךָ״ יַתִּירָא.
The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to teruma that contain the term “your grain.” They are: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); “And you shall eat before the Lord your God…the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); and “The first fruits of your grain…you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). It can therefore be claimed that only there Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that one is obligated to separate tithes from grain that was owned by a gentile, as in addition to the first reference to “your grain,” which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Temple’s possession, it is written an additional “your grain,” and then another reference to “your grain.”
הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.
The Gemara elaborates: This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to include additional cases. In this case, the verses teach that even grain that belonged to gentiles is obligated in the separation of tithes.
אֲבָל הָכָא, תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּתִיב, חַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּדֵי עִיסַּתְכֶם, וְחַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ וְלֹא עִיסַּת גּוֹיִם וְלֹא עִיסַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
But here, with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla, the term “your dough” is written only twice: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift; as that which is set apart of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart. Of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:20–21). One reference to “your dough” teaches that one is obligated to separate ḥalla only from an amount equal to your dough in the wilderness, where the mitzva was commanded, i.e., the volume of one omer. And one reference to “your dough” teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated property.
אוֹ דִלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּקָא פָּטְרִי, אֲבָל רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה גָּמְרִי ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵהָתָם.
The Gemara continues: Or perhaps it is Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon who taught that mishna, as they maintain that grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, and likewise dough kneaded by a gentile owner is likewise exempt from the obligation to separate ḥalla. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive by way of verbal analogy the halakha with regard to ḥalla, concerning which it is written: “Of the first of your dough,” from the same expression that appears there, with regard to tithes: “The first fruits of your grain.” Just as in the case of tithes they hold that one is obligated to separate the tithes from a pile of grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner, so too they hold that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner.
אָמַר רָבָא: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּאֶחְזְיֵהּ בְּחֶילְמָא. הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר – גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר, מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר – גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר.
Rava said: May it be God’s will that I see the answer to my question in a dream. Rava then said: The one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from any obligation to separate ḥalla. So too the one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate ḥalla.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וְחַלָּה, מוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, וְחַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד בּוֹ.
Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 4:13): With regard to a gentile who separated a lamb in order to redeem a firstborn donkey, or if he separated ḥalla from dough that he kneaded, one informs him that he is exempt from these obligations and his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests and the lamb designated to redeem his firstborn donkey may be sheared and worked.
הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, וְגִלְגּוּל גּוֹי פּוֹטֵר.
One can infer: But if a gentile separated teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, from a grain pile that he smoothed, his teruma is prohibited to a non-priest. And this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, as the same halakhot apply to tithes as to teruma, and yet he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate ḥalla. This refutes Rava’s conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to ḥalla.
וְעוֹד אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: חַלַּת גּוֹי בָּאָרֶץ, וּתְרוּמָתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, חַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּתְרוּמָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ – אֲסוּרָה וּמְדַמַּעַת.
And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to ḥalla of a gentile that he separated after kneading his dough in Eretz Yisrael, or his teruma that he separated after smoothing his pile of grain outside Eretz Yisrael, in both cases one informs him that he is exempt from those obligations and his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests and his teruma does not render a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce. One can infer: But his teruma from his grain in Eretz Yisrael is prohibited to non-priests and renders a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce.
וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר!
The Gemara explains the objection: And again this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, and nevertheless he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate ḥalla.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם בַּעֲלֵי כִיסִים.
The Gemara answers: This ruling that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does not exempt it from the obligations of teruma and tithes applies only by rabbinic law. By Torah law, the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does exempt it from the obligation to separate teruma and tithes. The Sages enacted a decree due to the schemes of people of means. There was a fear that conniving merchants might temporarily transfer ownership of their produce to gentiles while the piles were smoothed, after which the gentiles would return them to their possession, thereby circumventing the obligation to separate teruma and tithes.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי? אֶפְשָׁר דְּאָפֵי לָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח, וְעוֹד.
The Gemara asks: If so, then ḥalla should be subject to the same rabbinic decree as well, to prevent someone from circumventing their obligation to separate ḥalla by temporarily selling their dough to a gentile who will knead it and return it to them. Why then does the baraita teach that dough kneaded by a gentile owner is exempt? The Gemara answers: There is no need for a decree in this case, since if one wanted to circumvent his obligation to separate ḥalla from his dough, an easier method is available: It is possible for him to bake using less than five-fourths of a kav of flour and a bit more, the minimum amount necessitating the separation of ḥalla.
תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד לַהּ כִּדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַעֲרִים אָדָם עַל תְּבוּאָתוֹ וּמַכְנִיסָהּ בַּמּוֹץ שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אִי נָמֵי, דְּעַיֵּיל לַהּ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ קַרְפֵּיפוֹת?
The Gemara asks: If so, why is there a need for a rabbinic decree with regard to teruma and tithes? The obligation to separate teruma and tithes can also be easily circumvented by acting in accordance with that which Rabbi Oshaya suggested, as Rabbi Oshaya says: A person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and exempt himself by bringing it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from teruma and tithes. Although the obligation to separate teruma from and to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. Alternatively, another option of avoiding the obligation of teruma and tithes is to bring in the produce to his house by way of roofs or by way of enclosures [karpeifot]. The obligation of teruma and tithes applies only to produce that passes through the entrance of the house.
הָתָם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא; הָכָא בְּצִינְעָא, לָא זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא.
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of teruma and tithes, the two options of bringing in the grain in its chaff or by way of roofs are performed in public [befarhesya], and it is degrading for one to be seen circumventing his obligation. Consequently, one who wishes to avoid the obligation would prefer the option of transferring ownership to a gentile, which the Sages prevent with their decree. Here, in the case of ḥalla, the option of baking with less than the minimum quantity of flour to avoid being obligated to separate ḥalla from the dough is performed in private, and it is not degrading for him, and he would sooner take advantage of that option than go through the process of transferring the dough to a gentile. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree in this case.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּא לוֹ לָעִשָּׂרוֹן, נָתַן עָלָיו שַׁמְנוֹ וּלְבוֹנָתוֹ, יָצַק וּבָלַל, הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
MISHNA: After daybreak, the priest sacrificing the omer came to the sifted tenth of an ephah, placed in the vessel in his hand some of its log of oil, and placed its frankincense on the side of the vessel. He then poured some more oil from the log onto the high-quality flour and mixed them together, waved and brought the meal offering to the corner of the altar, and removed the handful and burned it on the altar. And the rest of the meal offering is eaten by the priests.
מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר, יוֹצְאִין וּמוֹצְאִין שׁוּק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא קֶמַח קָלִי, שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין.
Once the omer was sacrificed people would emerge and find the marketplace of Jerusalem full of the flour from the parched grain of the new crop that was permitted by the waving and the sacrifice of the omer offering. That filling of the marketplace with the new crop was performed not with the approval of the Sages; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They would do so with the approval of the Sages.
גְּמָ׳ וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the marketplaces of Jerusalem would be filled with flour of parched grain even before the sacrificing of the omer offering, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Sages approved of this practice. The Gemara asks: And doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued a decree against filling of the marketplaces with grain that is prohibited in consumption at the time? Wasn’t he concerned that perhaps someone might come to eat from it?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית, וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בָּדַק כּוּ׳.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesaḥim 10b): Rabbi Yehuda says that one searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the eradication of leaven. And the Rabbis say: That is not the halakha; rather, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day, and if he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. Since Rabbi Yehuda does not allow a search on Passover itself, he is evidently concerned that one who finds prohibited food might come to eat it. The same reasoning should apply in the case of the new crop.
אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁאנֵי חָדָשׁ,
Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:
