Comentario sobre Jalá 3:12

אוכלין עראי עד שתתגלגל – when it becomes combined well, because there is no designation of the term “dough” until it is rolled [and shaped].

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the question of when one can eat dough without separating hallah.

ותטמטם בשעורים – because the dough of barley scatters and does not combine well with the dough of wheat, but rather kneads into a cohesive shapeless mass in the hand

One may snack from dough, until it is rolled, in [the case of] wheat [flour], or before it is made into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour]. A person can eat a piece of dough as a snack even though hallah has not yet been removed from it. This is true as long as long as it has not yet been rolled, if the flour was made of wheat, or made into a solid mass, in the case of barley. Wheat flour is finer and therefore, it is considered dough once it has been kneaded well and rolled out to make loaves of bread (flat like pita). Barley flour is coarser and therefore it is considered dough once she gets it to stick together into a lump. This rule should be familiar if you have already learned Tractate Maasrot. There we learned that in general one can snack from produce before its processing has been completed.

חייב מיתה – for its work had been completed and it is an eatabler forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, becomes [liable for] death [if consumed].

[Once] one has rolled it [in the case of] wheat [flour], or made it into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour], one who eats it is liable for death [at the hands of heaven]. After it has been either rolled or made into a solid mass, a non-priest who eats it is liable for “death at the hands of heaven.” This is the same penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah, and as we have seen, the laws of hallah are frequently derived from the laws of terumah, because the Torah calls both “holy.”

מגבהת חלתה – it is the ordinance of the Sages regarding ritually pure dough to rush to separate Hallah in purity, lest the dough become ritually impure, for the essence of the Mitzvah is to wait until the completion of the kneading.

As soon as she puts in the water she should lift out the hallah, provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there. The way to avoid this severe penalty is for the woman to remove the hallah from the dough as soon as she puts water in the flour. Even though one could snack on it until it is rolled or made into a solid mass, this is not advisable, because it might lead one to snack on it at a later point. The version of our mishnah reads “provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.” This is interpreted to mean that if even after she removes hallah before it has been kneaded, there remain 5/4 of a kav, then the problem has not been solved, because she took out hallah to early she should only take it out once it has been kneaded, and not as soon as the water has been mixed in with the flour. Another version of this section reads, “as long as there are 5/4 of a kav of flour there.” If there is not such a measure, she should not take out hallah, even if she will add more flour later on.

ובלבד שיהא שם חמשת רבעים קמח – that had been combined in water, for less than this, the dough did not reach to the general obligation for Hallah. And there are books which have the reading: ובלבד שלא יהיה שם חמשת רבעים קמח/ and as long as there will not be there five-fourths flour, that is to say, that there should not remain five-fourths flour that was not mixed/combined with water, for if there remained five-fourths, they would not be exempt from Hallah if he separated it prior to be rolled [and shaped]. And in the Jerusalem Talmud, we prove that if he said, “Behold this is Hallah,” on the leaven and on the dough and on the flour that remains after the dough had been rolled [and shaped], all of it is sanctified/dedicated in my hands for the sake of Hallah, this would be permitted. And similarly, a person should teach the women to say this as we separate Hallah, immediately after rolling [and shaping] the dough, but before the forming of the bread.

נדמעה עיסתה – The priest’s due was mixed with less than one-hundred parts of non-sacred food. -

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that once a woman rolls out wheat dough it becomes liable for terumah. Our mishnah teaches some differences between the rules that apply before she rolls out the dough and those that apply after she rolls out the dough.

משגלגלה חייבת – for since it became liable for Hallah already, further, it cannot be affected by the mixture of Terumah and Hullin.

Dough which became medumma before she had rolled it, it is exempt [from hallah]. If after she had rolled it, it is subject [to hallah]. Medumma is a mixture of terumah and hullin (non-sacred produce) when there are not 100 parts of hullin for one part terumah (this topic was dealt with at length in tractate Terumah). If the non-sacred dough becomes mixed with terumah dough before it is rolled out, then she does not need to take out hallah, because it was exempt from hallah before it ever became liable for hallah. However, if it first becomes liable for hallah when she rolls it, and only afterwards it is mixed with terumah and becomes medumma, then it is still liable for hallah. What will happen in this case is that she will have to give the hallah to the priest and the rest remains medumma, doubtful terumah. Medumma may not be eaten by a non-priest, but it may be sold to a priest.

עד שלא גלגלה תעשה בטומאה – since even if it had been made in ritual purity, no Kohen is permitted to eat it because of the doubt that had resulted in it, for it could have been made ritually impure immediately before rolling [and shaping].

If there occurred to her some doubtful uncleanness before she had rolled it, it may be completed in uncleanness. If after she had rolled it, it should be completed in cleanness. If the dough becomes doubtfully unclean before it becomes liable for hallah, meaning something may (or may not) have happened to it to make it ritually unclean, then she can continue to make the dough in a state of uncleanness. In any case the priest cannot eat the hallah that will be taken out of the dough, for it may be impure, and therefore it doesn’t matter if she makes it certainly impure. However, if it becomes doubtfully unclean after it has been rolled, then it became liable for hallah before it became impure. It is forbidden to impart certain impurity to hallah (or terumah) that is only doubtfully impure. Since this dough has already been rolled, and thereby made liable for hallah, it is treated as if it is hallah. She must make the rest of the dough in a state of purity.

משגלגלה תעשה בטהרה – if after the rolling [and shaping] a doubt would originate, it is prohibited to defile it, for non-sacred food which is subject to sacred gifts for Hallah is considered like Hallah, and Terumah which is made for handling requires guarding.

עד שלא גלגלה ופדאתה – but after she redeemed it, she rolled it. חייבת – since at the time of the rolling, it was not dedicated [to the Temple].

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with differences between the rules that apply before she rolls the dough and those that apply afterwards.

שבשעת חובתה היתה פטורה – for the rolling of sanctified produce exempts it, as it is written (Numbers 15:20): “As the first yield] of your baking….” And not the dough that was sanctified [to the Temple].

[If] she dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before rolling it, and then redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah]. Dough that has been dedicated to the Temple is exempt from hallah. This is true with regard to all of the agricultural gifts one is exempt from giving them if the produce has already been dedicated to the Temple. However, in order for the dough to be exempt it has to belong to the Temple at the time it becomes liable for hallah, meaning when it is rolled. Thus, if a woman dedicated her dough to the Temple before she rolled it and then redeemed it before she rolled it, it is subject to hallah because when she rolls it, it belongs to her again.

[If she dedicated it] after rolling it, and redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah]. Similarly, if she dedicates the dough after it has been rolled and then she redeems it, it is liable for hallah, because she owned it at the time it became liable.

[But if] she dedicated it before rolling it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it, and after that she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time of its obligation it was exempt. However, if she dedicates it before she rolls it, and then the Temple treasurer (or any other Temple agent) takes possession of it and rolls it, and then she redeems it, it is exempt because it belonged to the Temple when it became liable for hallah. While this may be a case that will never in actuality happen, what is important is that it teaches a principle if it is in her possession when it becomes liable for hallah, she must separate the hallah.

עד שלא באו לעונת המעשרות – each one is according to the statute that is explained in the first chapter of Ma’aserot (see Mishnah 1).

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. This time the subject is tithes. Produce becomes liable for tithes once its processing is completed. This very same mishnah appeared in Peah 4:8. My commentary here is the same as I wrote there.

וגמרן הגזבר – and were completed while they were under the hand of the treasurer.

Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. Produce becomes liable to be tithed once it has been harvested, processed and made into a pile. Before this point he may eat of it without tithing. In the scenario in this section, he dedicates it before it becomes liable to be tithed and then he redeems it before it comes liable to be tithed. He is then liable to tithe the produce when it becomes liable for tithes.

שבשעת חובתן היו פטורים – as it is written, "דגנך"/”your grain” (see Deuteronomy 14:23: “[You shall consume the tithes] of your new grain,[and wine and oil]…” and Deuteronomy 12:17: “[You may not partake in your settlements of the tithes] of your new grain [or wine or oil….”).

If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed]. In this case he dedicated it and redeemed it after he became liable for tithing, so again, he is liable to tithe the produce before he goes ahead and uses it.

If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt. In this case, he dedicates it before it is even a third ripe and then the produce ripens, is harvested and the Temple treasurer makes the grain into a pile. Since the grain was in the legal possession of the Temple when it became liable for tithes, he is not liable for tithes when he redeems it.

פטורה מן החלה – for the rolling by an Israelite does not make the dough of a heathen liable [for Hallah], and similarly, the rolling by a heathen of the dough of an Israelite does not make it exempt [from Hallah].

Introduction Only dough owned by a Jew is subject to hallah, not dough owned by a Gentile. This mishnah teaches when the dough is considered to be owned by a Jew.

אם אין בשל ישראל כשיעור – that we are obligated to separate Hallah from it, which is five-fourths.

If a Gentile gave [flour] to an Israelite to make for him dough, it is exempt from hallah. Since this flour is owned by a Gentile, it is exempt from hallah, even though the Jew is the one who kneaded it.

If the Gentile gave it to him as a gift, before rolling it, he is liable. If after rolling it, he is exempt. If the Gentile gave the dough to the Jew as a gift, then it will depend on when he gave it to him. If he gave it to him before rolling it, then it is liable for hallah because a Jew owned it when it became liable for hallah. But if he gave it to him after he rolled it, then it is exempt from hallah, because a Gentile owned it when it became liable.

If one makes dough together with a Gentile, then if there is not in [the portion] of the Israelite the minimum measure subject to hallah, it is exempt from hallah. If a Jew joins in a partnership with a Gentile to make dough, then the dough is liable for hallah if the Jew’s portion is the minimum measure of 5/4 of a kav. If not, then the dough is exempt, even if there is together more than 5/4 of a kav.

ספק חייב – because there is a doubt about a prohibition, and we follow the stricter practice, so we separate the Hallah and sell it to a Kohen.

A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a non-Jew’s dough is not subject to hallah. If a non-Jew has dough, and then converts, the dough is not subject to hallah if he made it before he converted. If he made it after he converted, it is subject to hallah.

ואין חייבין עליה חומש – a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) who eats it does not pay the additional one-fifth, but he pays the principal. The payments of Terumah are an atonement. Therefore, we separate the payments and atone out of doubt, and sell them to the Kohen.

And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth. If it is unclear whether he made it before he converted or not, then he must give hallah. However, this hallah is not treated as “certain” hallah, rather just as “doubtful” hallah, meaning it may or not be hallah. It should be eaten by a priest but if a non-priest eats it, he must restore to the priests the value of that which he ate, but not an added fifth. Only one who eats “certain” hallah must pay back an added fifth of the value, which is the same law that governs terumah.

אחר הקרימה בתנור – for Rabbi Akiba holds that completion of work [to make it liable] for Hallah does not occur until the formation of a light crust on the face of the dough in the oven. And this is the stage for Hallah. Therefore, if he converted prior to the formation of a light crust on the face of the dough in the oven, he is liable for Hallah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiba.

Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven. In all of the above mishnayot we learned that dough becomes liable for hallah once it is rolled. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with all of these mishnayot and holds that the end of processing for dough, meaning the point at which it becomes obligated for hallah, is when it forms a light crust in the oven. This is derived from Numbers 15:19 which reads, “And it will be when you eat from the bread of the land, you shall take out terumah for the Lord.” The operative word here is “bread” once it can be considered bread, then one must remove hallah.

אורז – it is not from the species of grain. And all that is not from the species of grain is exempt from Hallah, and a person does not fulfill his religious obligation [for Matzah] from it on Passover.

One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah.
But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.
Rice is not one of the five grains subject to the laws of hallah (see 1:1), nor can one use it as matzah on Pesah. Our mishnah teaches that if one mixes rice and one of the other five grains, such as wheat, he is liable for hallah if he can taste the wheat. If he makes it into matzah he can use it as matzah at the seder, as long as he can taste the wheat.
He is obligated for hallah even if there is not enough wheat flour to constitute the minimum measure required for dough to be liable for hallah (5/4 of a kav).
If he cannot taste the wheat then there is no need to separate hallah and it can’t be used as matzah on Pesah.

יש בה טעם דגן חייב בחלה – and even though the grain lacks the measurement for Hallah.

אם יש לו פרנסה ממקום אחר – if he has other flour besides from this dough, he brings flour according to the measure, that if he would combine to this measure that is liable for Hallah, it would have five-fourths which is the measure of Hallah, and he kneads the dough and mixes it with the dough that has the measure, and removes from it according to the measure for Hallah that he must separate from the five-fourths.

Introduction Before people bought yeast at the supermarket, people used starter dough to leaven their bread. They would take a piece of leavened dough (sour dough) from one batch and put it into another batch. Our mishnah deals with a person who takes starter dough from a batch of dough from which hallah had not been taken, and puts it into a batch of dough from which hallah had been taken. He obviously wants to avoid having to separate hallah again from dough which already had hallah removed.

ואם לאו – if he lacks flour מוציא חלה – one twenty-fourth on each dough, for eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts are prohibited in any amount in its species, and all of it would be made subject to sacred gifts for Hallah.

One who takes leaven out of dough from which hallah had not been taken and puts it into dough from which hallah had been taken:
If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [hallah] in accordance with the precise amount. If he has another batch of dough (a third batch) from which hallah had not yet been removed, and he can use that batch to remove hallah to exempt the leaven which he put into another batch (meaning that batch is large enough), then he may do so according to the amount of leaven he added to the other batch.

But if does not, he takes out one [portion of] hallah for the whole [dough]. However, if he does not have another batch of hallah, then he must remove hallah from the batch to which he added the leaven according to the amount of dough in the entire batch, even though he only added a little bit of leaven. Since he can’t separate hallah for that little bit of leaven from another batch, it places the entire batch into which it has been under the category of dough from which hallah has not been removed.

זיתי מסיק – olives that the owner harvests, and the harvesting of the olives is called “olive harvest.”

Introduction When one harvests olive trees, and some olives are left in the tree, the poor have the right to come and strike the tree to bring down the last remaining olives. Similarly, if there are grapes that are not fully formed at the regular time of harvest, they belong to the poor. Regularly harvested grapes and olives are liable to terumah and tithes, but those left for the poor are not. Our mishnah discusses what one can do if his regularly harvested grapes or olives become mixed with those belonging to the poor. Can he get away without having to separate terumah and tithes based on the entire larger amount?

זיתי נקוף – olives that the poor people glean, as it says (Isaiah 17:6): “[Only gleanings shall be left of him] as when one beats an olive tree: two berries or three [on the topmost branch…,]” and they are exempt from tithes.

Similarly, if olives of [regular] picking became mixed with olives [left over] for striking-off [by the poor], or grapes of [regular] picking, with grapes [left over] for gleaning [by the poor]:
If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [terumah and tithes] in accordance with the precise amount. This is the same rule as that found in section one in yesterday’s mishnah.

ענבי בציר – which are liable for tithes.

But if does not, he takes out one terumah and terumat maaser for all of the grapes. If he does not have other produce from which to take out the terumah, then he must separate terumah and the terumah that is taken from tithes (terumat maaser) for the entire amount, even though the produce that was for the poor was exempt. Note that he does not need to take out tithes for the entire amount. The law is stricter when it comes to terumah because a non-priest who eats terumah is liable for death by the hands of heaven. Therefore, he has to be certain that he has separated terumah for the entire amount.

עם ענבי עוללות – which are exempt from tithes.

And as for the rest, [he takes out] tithe and the second tithe in accordance with the precise amount. The laws regarding tithes are not as strict because a non-priest can eat tithe. Therefore, he can take out tithe and second tithe for the amount of produce that is actually liable to tithes and second tithe. This is the amount of his produce that is in the mixture; it does not include the produce that belongs to the poor.

אם יש לו – other eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts and similar things, he removes from them the correct proportion according to measure of what he must remove from olive harvests or from vintage grapes that require tithing.

ואם לאו – if he lacks any other eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, we see it as if they are all eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, and we remove the Priest’s Due and the [Levite’s] tenth of the First Tithe [that goes to the Kohen] on everything.

והשאר מעשר – First [Tithe]

ומעשר שני – or Second Tithe, which we don’t remove other than according to proportion, and not that he should not separate only according to proportion, for behold, it is impossible to separate Terumat Ma’aser (i.e., the tenth of the tenth) until we first separate [First] Tithe on everything. And furthermore, if we do not separate [First] Tithe on everything, everything that he tithes, there is non-sacred produce [contained within] by proportion. And it is found that he would be separating from that which exempt [from tithes] on that which is liable [for tithes], but the tithes have to be separated on everything. But one does not have to give the Levite or to the poor other than according to proportion, and the rest he may combine with his produce. And similarly, the Second Tithe does not have to be redeemed other than by proportion, but Terumah (i.e, the heave-offering to the Kohen of two percent) and Terumat Ma’aser (i.e., tenth of a tenth of the rest which the Levite gives to the Kohen) which are [punishable] by death, when one separates [tithes] on everything, it is found there is found non-sacred produce mixed in, and one must give everything to the Kohen.

הנוטל שאור מעיסת חיטין – which had not separated/consecrated its Hallah.

Introduction This mishnah returns us to the subject that was first raised in mishnah seven above dough from wheat flour that is mixed in with dough from rice flour. As a reminder, wheat flour is subject to the laws of hallah whereas rice flour is not.

ואם לאו פטורה – for the eatables forbidden pending separation of sacred gifts does not prohibit it, since it lacks taste.

One who takes leaven from a dough of wheat [flour] and puts [it] into dough of rice [flour], [then] if it has the taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, [but] if not, it is exempt. Leaven is the sour dough used to make new batches of bread rise. If leaven is taken from wheat flour dough and put into rice flour dough, the batch is liable for hallah only if one can still taste the wheat flour.

If so, why did they say: “Untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited”? This section raises a difficulty on the law presented in the previous section. According to the quote in this section, “untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited,” if even a small amount of untithed produce falls into a large amount of tithed produce, then one cannot eat the produce until he removes tithes and terumah. Why then did they say in section one that the mixture becomes prohibited only if it imparts taste?

א"כ למה אמרו הטל אוסר בכל שהוא – as we said above (Mishnah 9), if he lacks the means to do so, that he brings Hallah for everything. These words refer to [Hallah] from the same species, but if it is not from the same species, such as the case of wheat with rice, that provides a flavor, for the reason that [we require taking Hallah] from eatables forbidden pending separation of sacred gifts for any amount, because when they permitted that of one wheat [batch], it exempts the entire pile; so too its prohibition, and for that reason it does not belong other than one species with another of the same species.

That is [with regard to a mixture of] a species with its own species, but [with regard to a mixture of a species] not with its own species, only when it imparts taste. The answer is that there is a difference between cases in which one species becomes mixed up in the same species and cases where different species are mixed. So, for instance, if a tiny bit of wheat dough from which hallah had not been removed became mixed up with a large batch of wheat dough from which hallah had been removed, it would be forbidden to eat of it until he removes hallah. There can be no concept of “imparting taste” here because it all has the same taste. In contrast, if there are two different species, then the species that has not had its terumah removed (or that is liable for hallah, as in section one) must impart taste to the species that has had its terumah removed (or is liable for hallah). If there is no taste, then the mixture is not prohibited.