פירוש על חלה 4:18

שתי נשים אפילו הן ממין אחד פטורים – and neither the adhering nor the fusion (i.e., thing contained in one vessel are to be considered as one mass) in a basket does not combine them, since they are strict [in this area]. And even if they kneaded the two Kabs as one, since they are destined to be divided, they are exempt. And the anonymous Mishnah is according to the School of Hillel who say that [we require] two Kabs for Hallah (see Mishnah Eduyot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2), but it is not the Halakha, for we establish that five-quarters [of dough] is the [minimum] measure for Hallah.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses the difference between cases where two batches of dough from the same species come into contact and cases where two batches of dough from different species come into contact.

Two women who made [separate doughs] from two [separate] kavs, and these [doughs] touched one another, even if they are of the same species, they are exempt [from hallah]. In this case two women each make a batch of dough and this batch of dough is only a kav in volume, which means that the dough is not subject to hallah (5/4 of a kav is the minimum). If these two batches of dough come into contact with each other they are still not subject to hallah because they are owned by different women. This is true even if they are of the same species.

When they belong to one woman: If one species [comes into contact] with the same species, they are subject [to hallah]. If different species, they are exempt. If the two batches of dough belong to the same woman, then if the two batches of dough are made from the same species, they are liable because they join together to create the minimum measure. If they are of different species then the two batches do not join together to form a minimum measure and they remain exempt from hallah.

החטים אינן מצטרפות עם הכל – if there were two doughs: one of wheat and one of another species of the five species, and there in neither of them had the [sufficient] measure for Hallah, and they adhere to each other.

Introduction In the beginning of the tractate we learned that there are five species of grain: wheat, barley, rye, spelt and oats. Here we see that for the purpose of mixtures of different types of grain, these don’t all count as separate species. Rather, in most cases, these different species are reckoned together. This is probably because they look somewhat the same.

השעורים מצטרפות עם הכל – even with spelt, and even though this is part of the species of wheat, it is not specifically the species of wheat, but rather the species of barley, and even the species of wheat, and it is explained at the beginning of the first chapter (Mishnah 1 and see the Bartenura there).

What counts as a species with its same species?
Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt; Wheat is a separate species and is not reckoned together with any other species, other than spelt. Thus if wheat and oat batches of dough come into contact, they do not join for the sake of making them subject to hallah.

שאר המינים מצטרפין זה עם זה – such as spelt, oats and rye. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat. Barley is reckoned with all four other species, except for wheat, which we learned above is only reckoned with spelt.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another. Finally, Rabbi Yohanan b. Nuri explains that with regard to spelt, rye and oats, they are all reckoned together. We should note that overall the better the quality of grain, the less likely it is to join together with other species. Wheat is the “king of grains” and the best bread is made from wheat. Therefore, it is nearly exclusive, joining together only with spelt. Barley is less than wheat, and so it joins together with everything but wheat. Finally, the other grains are similar to barley and they too join together with all other grains, except for wheat.

שני קבין – of one of the five species that are liable for Hallah (see Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of when separate batches of dough join together. The mishnah describes a situation in which there are three batches of dough in a row. The first batch and the third batch are subject to hallah but the middle batch, which is touching both the first and third batch, is exempt from hallah.

וקב אורז או תרומה – which are not liable for Hallah in the middle

[If there are two doughs from] two [separate] kavs, and a kav of rice [dough] or a kav of terumah dough [lying] between, they are not reckoned together. The fact that the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because it is made of rice, or because it is terumah dough which was never subject to hallah, means that it does not serve to join the two outside batches of dough. Since they are each less than the minimum measurement of 5/4 of a kav, they are exempt.

אין מצטרפין – to become liable for Hallah

[If there was] dough from which hallah had already been taken [lying] between, they are reckoned together, since it had once been subject to hallah. If, however, the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because its hallah has already been removed, then it does serve to connect the two outside batches of dough. This dough was once liable for hallah and it is therefore categorically subject to the laws of hallah, unlike the rice or terumah dough which were never subject to hallah.

יטול מן האמצע – from the place that they adhere one to the other, we find that we separate [Hallah] from both of them.

A kav of [dough made from] new grain and a kav of [dough from] old grain which are stuck together: Rabbi Ishmael says: let him take [hallah] from the middle; But the sages prohibit. Here there are two batches of dough, each of which consists of a kav, less than the minimum measure to make it liable for hallah. One batch is from new grain (lesser quality) and one is from old grain (greater quality). The two batches are stuck together, thereby making them liable for hallah according to all opinions. The question is whether one can take hallah from one in order to exempt the other. Rabbi Ishmael says that one should take from the middle of the two batches, and in this way he will take from both and exempt the entire batch. However, the sages prohibit and say that he must take from the old to exempt the old and from the new to exempt the new. Hallah that he separates from the new cannot exempt the old, nor can hallah from the old exempt the new, even though they are from the same species. Note that these two batches are similar enough to join together but not similar to allow one to separate from one for the other.

וחכמים אוסרים – for one who sees that it is thought that it is permitted to give priest’s due and to tithe from the new grain [of this year] with the old grain [of last year] and from the old grain [of last year] with the new grain [of this year]. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

One who has taken hallah from [dough made out of] one kav: Rabbi Akiva says: it is hallah; But the sages say: it is not hallah. If one takes hallah out of a batch of dough that is not liable for hallah, Rabbi Akiva says that that which he takes out is considered hallah and all of the rules of hallah apply to it. Since he called it hallah, it is hallah. Rabbi Akiva seems to think that what makes hallah is the person, not the dough. The other sages say that it is not hallah, because if the dough wasn’t subject to hallah, that which he takes out of it cannot be hallah.

מן הקב – which lacks the [appropriate] measure for Hallah (i.e., five-fourths).

ר"ע אומר חלה – and he that completed the dough afterwards according to the [appropriate] measure for Hallah, for since the measure was completed, it is [liable] for Hallah retroactively.

אינה חלה – since at the time when he separated it, the dough was exempt. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ר"ע פוטר – He follows his line of reasoning that it goes back and becomes Hallah retroactively.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It continues to discuss a situation where a person separated hallah from dough that was smaller than the minimum measure.

נמצא חומרו קולו – the stringency of Rabbi Akiba who said above (Mishnah 4) that when he takes Hallah from one Kab that becomes Hallah and has become sanctified, causes him to be lenient and to exempt with two Kabim when he took his Hallah from this [Kab] on its own and that [Kab] on its own.

Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable. There were two separate kavs of dough, and the owner took hallah out of each of them even though both were exempt because they were not of sufficient quantity to be liable. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva that which he removed and called hallah is actually hallah, whereas the other sages hold that it is not. So to Rabbi Akiva, both batches are considered dough whose hallah has been removed, whereas the other sages would hold that no hallah has been removed from these two. After having separated hallah from the two batches he now goes and makes one batch of dough out of them. Now the dough is large enough to be liable for hallah. Rabbi Akiva says that since hallah has already been removed, the mixture of the two batches is not liable for hallah. The sages hold that the dough he separated from the batches when they were separate is not considered hallah and hence “hallah” has never really been taken out of this dough. Therefore, he has to separate hallah from the mixed batch.

It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling. The rabbis love paradoxes, or at least surprising twists of halakhah. In this case, the stringency of Rabbi Akiva in the previous mishnah, that he considers that which was separated to be hallah, leads to the leniency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is exempt. The opposite could be said about the other rabbis their leniency in yesterday’s mishnah, that which was separated is not considered hallah, leads to their stringency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is liable. While this section doesn’t really add any information, it is the type of phenomenon that the Mishnah loves to pay attention to.

נוטל אדם כדי חלה – [A person] who wishes to knead a few batches of dough of impure doubtfully-tithed [dough -for Hallah], he can establish their Hallah from pure dough whose Hallah had not yet been dedicated, and that it will be this particularly batch of ritually pure dough that will be established for Hallah on all the dough that he will need from the ritually impure doubtfully-tithed [dough- for Hallah].

Introduction This mishnah is complicated and I will explain it entirely, as opposed to line by line, below.

עד שתסרח – this particular batch of dough and that it won’t be appropriate for human consumption, for regarding doubtfully tithed produce, the Rabbis were lenient [to permit] dedication from something pure [to fulfill the liability] on that which is impure and from that which is not nearby. And they (i.e., the Rabbis) were also lenient to dedicate from that which was of poor quality [to fulfill the liability] on something that was good, and the Hallah of doubtfully-tithed [dough] is that grai which a person buys from an ignoramus who feeds it to the poor and to troops on the march, as it is taught in the Mishnah (Tractate Demai, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1): “We feed the poor Demai produce and the .troops on the march Demai produce.” But the Hallah that we separate from it is Hallah of doubtfully-tithed dough.

A man may take the requisite amount for hallah out of [clean] dough from which hallah has not [previously] been removed in order to remove it in a state of cleanness in order to go on separating [hallah] from it for [unclean] demai, until it becomes putrid, since hallah for demai may be taken from clean [dough] for unclean [dough], and from [one dough for another dough] which is not in close proximity. This mishnah refers to a person who sets aside dough in order for this dough to count as hallah for other dough that he will receive in the future from which he doesn’t want to bother separating hallah. The dough that he will receive in the future is “demai” meaning it was received from an am haaretz, one who doesn’t observe these laws, and therefore we have to be concerned lest hallah has not been removed from it. However, the laws are usually more lenient when it comes to demai. Generally, one cannot take hallah from one batch of dough in order to exempt different dough unless the two batches are in close proximity. When it comes to demai this is permitted. Secondly, one cannot separate hallah from clean dough in order to exempt unclean dough. Again, when it comes to demai this is permitted. The demai dough that he receives from the am haaretz can be assumed to be impure, and nevertheless he can separate pure hallah in order to exempt impure dough. To return to our situation, this person sets aside dough in order for that dough to count as hallah for demai dough that he will receive in the future from an am haaretz. He can do this until the dough becomes putrid. However, he is concerned lest the dough that he sets aside to count as hallah will become impure. The problem would then be that this dough has not had its hallah removed and by the time he takes the hallah out, it will be impure hallah. To prevent this from happening, he should immediately take the hallah out of this batch of dough. This way at least the hallah for this dough will be pure.

סוריא – lands that [King] David conquered, and lack the sanctity like the sanctity of the Land of Israel.

Introduction In rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders the land of Israel to the north and east but is not considered fully part of Israel. The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah. The first subject dealt with in our mishnah is people who are tenant-farming land that belongs to non-Jews in Syria. Tenant-farming means that the tenant has received a piece of land from its owner in order to work the land and keep for himself a portion of the crops. The second section deals with whether the laws of hallah apply to dough in Syria in the same way that they do in the land of Israel.

רבי אליעזר מחייב – he holds that they made Syria like the Land of Israel with regard to Tithes and Seventh Year produce.

An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt. According to Rabbi Eliezer, Syria is treated like the land of Israel when it comes to tithes and to sheviit (the sabbatical year). Just as in the land of Israel if a Jew is a tenant-farmer for a non-Jew on land owned by a non-Jew, he still has to separate tithes and observe the laws of the sabbatical year, so too when it comes to land in Syria, he must separate tithes and observe the sabbatical laws. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees. He holds that since the land belongs to a non-Jew and the Jew who is working the land doesn’t own it, he need not separate tithes or observe the sabbatical laws.

ורבן גמליאל פוטר – since he holds that they did not make Syria like the Land of Israel. And he is not liable for Tithes in Syria other than at the time when the land belongs to an Israelite and the heathen has no portion in it.

Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion. In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn that outside of the land of Israel one has to separate two portions of hallah from the dough. Consequently, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer debate what to do in Syria. Rabban Gamaliel stated above that Syria was not treated like Israel therefore, in Syria one has to separate two portions of hallah. Rabbi Eliezer above treated Syria like the land of Israel therefore in Syria one has to separate only one portion.

ר"ג אומר שתי חלות בסוריא – In the manner that they separate two Hallot loaves outside the Land [of Israel], one is burnt because it is ritually impure with the defilement of the lands of the nations (i.e., heathens), and the second is given to the Kohen in order that the law of Hallah from an Israelite should not be forgotten.

They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects. The mishnah now treats us to an interesting tidbit concerning the way people were acting. Originally, they adopted both lenient rulings. In other words, when it came to tithes and the sabbatical year, they treated Syria as if it was not the land of Israel. However, when it came to hallah, they separated only one portion, as if it was the land of Israel. They were not consistent as to which rabbi they followed they always adopted the more lenient opinion. However, eventually they changed their practice and acted consistent with the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel. This seems to be the way of behaving preferred by the mishnah here and in other places as well. One should not select lenient opinions from various rabbis rather one should choose one rabbi and follow his opinions, at least when these opinions are consistent with one another, as they are here.

ר' אליעזר אומר חלה אחת – Rabbi Eliezer according to his reasoning who said that they made Syria like the Land of Israel and its dust does not defile like the dust of the land of the heathens. Therefore, one Hallah [only] and not more than this.

אחזו קולו של רבן גמליאל – who exempts Syria from Tithes and Seventh-year produce.

וקולו של ר' אליעזר – who says that in Syria [only] one Hallah [is necessary]. And we hold hat he who acts according to the lenient opinion of this master and the lenient opinion of that master is [considered] wicked. Therefore, they retracted to act like Rabban Gamaliel in two matters – that Syria is not like the Land of Israel – either with regard to Tithes and Seventh-year produce when the heathen has a share in the land and not in regard to Hallah, and such is the Halakha.

שלש ארצות – are divided in the law of Hallah

Introduction In today’s mishnah Rabban Gamaliel defines the borders of Israel with regard to the issue of hallah. This same division is found in Sheviit 6:1, so I am not going to explain the geographical or historical issues here. Please look there for more information. According to the Torah, one need not separate hallah outside of the land of Israel (see Numbers 15:19). However, the rabbis decreed that Jews should continue to separate hallah from dough even outside of the land of Israel so that the laws of hallah would not be forgotten while the Jews were in the Diaspora. The problem is that outside of the land of Israel was considered to be impure, so that any hallah separated there would also be impure. So the hallah that they took out had to be burned. In order to remember that hallah was originally given to priests, the rabbis decreed that a Jew should separate a second portion of hallah and give that portion to the priests. It turns out, as we learned yesterday’s mishnah, that outside of the land of Israel a person would have to set aside a double portion of hallah.

מא"י ועד כזיב – that is to say, all of the Land of Israel until K’ziv, which is a strip that goes out from Acre to the northern side, and those who came up from Babylonia conquered it and sanctified it for a second time.

Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:
From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion. The northern border of the land of Israel is set at Chezib (see Sheviit 6:1). Until that point one separates from dough one portion of hallah.

מפרישים חלה אחת – and it is given to the Kohen who eats it in ritual purity.

From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure. This is an “in-between” geographical region. In Sheviit 6:1 we learned that some of the laws of sheviit apply here and some do not. With regard to hallah, what is important to understand is that the region is considered impure, as are all lands outside of Israel, and therefore any hallah separated there will be impure. So the first thing he does is separate a measure of hallah and then he destroys it by burning it. The problem with this is that the rabbis were concerned lest Jews forget the rules of hallah. Seeing the hallah burnt, they may not realize that the reason it was burned and not eaten is that it was impure by virtue of it being outside of Israel. Therefore they decreed that along with the “real” hallah that needs to be burned, people should also separate one portion of hallah and give it to a priest. This hallah is not the true biblically mandated hallah, but rather originates in a decree of the rabbis. Therefore we can be more lenient with it and it need not be of the minimum size (1/48). However, the hallah that is burned is biblically mandated and therefore it must consist of the minimum measure.

מכזיב ועד הנהר – to the eastern side and from K’ziv until Amanah on the western side. And it is not really the Land of Israel, since it was conquered by those who came up from Egypt but it was not conquered by those who came up from Babylonia, and the first sanctification was not sanctified for the time to come.

From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure. In this region, the agricultural laws do not apply and therefore both portions of hallah, the one that is burned and the one that is given to the priest, are decrees of the rabbis and not biblically mandated. In this case the law concerning which portion requires a minimum measure applies in an opposite fashion. The portion that is burned does not need to be of minimum measure because this portion is separated only because of a rabbinic decree. However, there is a minimum measure to the portion given to the priest, even though it too was a decree of the rabbis. One of the two portions needs to be of minimum measure so that these laws will not be forgotten, so it might as well be the portion that will not go to waste.

מפרישין שתי חלות – The first is burned because it is ritually impure with the defilement of the land of the heathen nations, and since those who came up from Babylonia did not capture it, the second [Hallah] is eaten, since the defilement of the first Hallah is not well-known, for it is not completely in the land of the heathens. But, if they would not separate the second Hallah which is consumed, they (i.e., people) will say that pure Terumah was burned, but when they separate the second Hallah and it is eaten, one who sees this will place upon his heart to understand the reason for the matter, or ask the Sages and they will inform him.

And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth; This portion given to the priest is only of rabbinic origin. Therefore, some of the purity laws that normally apply to biblically-mandated hallah, do not apply to this portion. Normally, an impure priest would go to the mikveh and immerse, and then be able to eat hallah/terumah only at nightfall. In this case it is sufficient for him to go the mikveh and eat the hallah before nightfall, because this is not actually hallah. It seems that the rabbis wanted him to go to the mikveh before eating this hallah so that he would remember that hallah should not be eaten in a state of impurity. However, in order to signify that this hallah was not biblically-mandated, they were somewhat lax in the application of these laws and they allowed him to eat before he was actually pure. Rabbi Yose rules that even an impure priest may eat this terumah, without going to the mikveh at all. But, he agrees that it can’t be eaten by anyone whose impurity stems from their own body. This would include zavim and zavot, men or women who have an abnormal genital discharge, menstruants and women after childbirth. Note that the women referred to here must be either wives or daughters of priests they too can eat hallah.

של אור יש לה שיעור – because this land was already holy. This appears like the Hallah of the Torah, therefore, he would separate according to the [appropriate] measure that they separate from a ritually impure dough, one out of twenty-four or [one] out of forty-eight.

It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table; Normally, a priest should not eat terumah or hallah at a table with a non-priest, lest the non-priest come to eat food strictly prohibited to him. Since this hallah is only of rabbinic origin, it may be eaten at a table with a non-priest.

ושל כהן אין לה שיעור – because this is from the words (i.e., teachings) of the Scribes/Sofrim.

And it may be given to any priest. Normally, one should not give hallah to an “am haaretz” priest, lest he defile it. We are again lenient in this case since the hallah is not biblically-mandated.

ומן הנהר ומן אמנה ולפנים – that is to say, from the beginning of the river and inward from it, and similarly, from the beginning of Amanah and inward from it, which is actually outside the Land [of Israel], and we separate two Hallot and both of them are from the words of the Scribes.

אחת לאור – which is ritually impure with the impurity actually of the land of the heathens.

ואחת לכהן – in order that the Torah of Hallah not be forgotten when it is given to the Kohen.

של אור אין לה שיעור – for since both of them are from the words of the Scribes, it is better to increase with that which we give to the Kohen that is eaten and not with what is burned.

וטבול יום אוכלה – to the Hallah that is thrown into the fire belongs to outside the land of Israel. And the person who has bathed in the day time (but must wait for sunset to be perfectly clean – see Leviticus 22:7 and Mishnah T’vul Yom, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), that is spoken of here is the Kohen who immersed for his nocturnal pollution, for the Hallah that is to be burnt in fire of outside the Land [of Israel] is not prohibited to him, other than to someone whose ritual impurity comes out upon him from his body, but someone who is impure in other impurities is permitted to eat it. Therefore, where outside of the Land [of Israel] there is a minor-age Kohen who had ever seen a nocturnal emission in his life, or the High Priest in years that immersed for his nocturnal emission, we separate one Hallah alone and give it to the Kohen. But if there is no minor-age Kohen, or a Kohen who immersed for a nocturnal emission , but there is a Kohen to whom a pollution happened, we separate two Hallot, one for the fire and it has no fixed measure, and one for the Kohen and it has a fixed measure, one out of forty-eight, according to the law of all dough that was defiled by accident. For the defilement of the land of the heathens is one that is unavoidable (i.e., by accident), and the Kohen eats it while a pollution happened, in order that the Torah of Hallah not be forgotten from Israel.

אינו צריך טבילה – And someone to whom a pollution happened is permitted [to eat] the Hallah of outside the Land of Israel. Bu the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

ואסורה לזבים ולזבות – The Rabbis stated this, for had Rabbi Yosi permitted this for those men and women afflicted with gonorrhea, in order that it would be permitted to those whom a pollution occurred.

ונאכלת עם הזר על השלחן – and we don’t decree that placing it on the table is on account of eating.

ונתנה לכל כהן – whether to a Kohen who is a Haver/who observes the Levitical laws in daily intercourse or a Kohen who is an ignoramus, such Maimonides has explained. But the approach of the Talmud does not prove this, but rather, whether [we are dealing with] a Kohen who eats his non-sacred food in ritual purity or a Kohen who does not eat his non-sacred food in ritual purity, but we do not give any gift from the gifts of the priesthood to any ignoramus , as it is written (II Chronicles 31:4): “[He ordered the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem] to deliver the portions of the priests and Levites, so that they might devote themselves to the Teaching of the LORD.” We do not give a portion other than Kohanim who devote themselves to the Torah of God, and similar, that which is taught in the Mishnah further on (Mishnah 9), these are given to every Kohen, [but] not to a Kohen who is an ignoramus, but to every Kohen, even though he does not eat his non-sacred food in ritual purity.

החרמים – for the Kohanim, as it is written (Numbers 18:14): “Everything that has been proscribed in Israel (see also Leviticus 27:28) shall be yours.”

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one can give hallah from outside of Israel to any priest, even an am haaretz who might defile it, because there is no prohibition of defiling this hallah. Our mishnah continues to list other priestly gifts that can be given to any priest, without fear that he will defile it. With regard to some of these things, there is no prohibition against defilement, and with regard to some of them, we assume that the priest will be cautious and not defile them.

והבכורות – if he is unblemished, there are the holy things of the Temple, but if he is blemished, it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “…The unclean and the clean alike may partake of it, [as of the gazelle and the deer].”

These may be given to any priest:
Devoted things (; Haramim are referred to in Numbers 18:14, which states, “all herem (devoted thing) in Israel shall be yours (to Aaron and his descendents).” These refer to gifts given to priests there is no prohibition of making them impure.

ופדיון פטר חמור – you redeem it with a lamb and it has no sanctity.

Firstlings; “Firstlings” are the first born of pure domesticated animals, sheep, cows and goats. If they are unblemished they are sacrificed and parts are eaten by priests. If they are blemished, then the priest gets to keep the entire animal.

ראשית הגז – as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:4): “You shall also give him [the first fruits of your new grain and wine and oil,] and the first shearing of your sheep.”

The redemption of the first born; This is the five shekels used to redeem a first-born human child (see Numbers 18:17-18).

ושמן שרפה – oil from the priest’s due that was deilved.

The [lamb substituted as] ransom for the firstling of a donkey; The first born of a donkey is redeemed with a lamb (see Exodus 13:13). The priest gets the lamb.

וקדשי מקדש – for they did not prohibit giving to the Kohen that which he was not careful about in its ritual impurity, but rather a thing which has a prohibition of defilement in the areas outside the Temple and Jerusalem, such as Terumah/priest’s due and the tithe-of-the-tithe (which the Levite gives to the Kohen from the one-tenth that he received from an Israelite) and Hallah, but the sanctified things of the Temple and Firstlings which he brings them to the Temple Court, they did not suspect, for he would [first] purify himself.

The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw; The parts of non-sacrificial animals given to the priest (see Deuteronomy 18:3-4).

ור' יהודה אוסר בבכורים – for he was suspect that perhaps he would not be careful with them, since the Divine Service is not performed with them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

The first of the fleece; The priest gets the first shearings of the sheep (Deuteronomy 18:4).

ר"ע מתיר – for Rabbi Akiba follows his own reasoning, as he stated in the second chapter of Maaser Sheni (Mishnah 4) that [regarding] vetches/horse-beans – anything done with them is done in a state of uncleanness.

Oil [fit only] for burning; Impure terumah must be burned. Since it is already impure, one can give it to an am haaretz priest.

וחכמים אוסרים – for they think that it is food, since is eaten in the years of famine. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Consecrated food [which must be eaten] within the Temple; If the priest has to eat the offering within the Temple then we can assume that he will eat it in purity. Am haaretz priests were not suspected of going into the Temple while impure.

And bikkurim. Rabbi Judah prohibits bikkurim. First fruits must be eaten while pure (both the fruit and the person). The rabbis hold that since these first fruits will be brought to the Temple, the am haaretz priest will be careful with their purity and therefore they can be given to any priest. Rabbi Judah disagrees.

Vetches of terumah: Rabbi Akiva permits, But the sages prohibit. Vetches are normally animal food (see Maaser Sheni 2:4) but are occasionally eaten by humans. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not really food for humans, the laws of purity don’t apply and therefore they can be given to an am haaretz priest. The other rabbis hold that the purity laws do apply, and they should only be given to a priest known to preserve the purity laws.

מביתר – name of a place outside the Land of Israel

Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him.
The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them.
The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (, but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).
Our mishnah mentions people who did two things that were against rabbinic law. The first thing is that they brought hallah from outside of Israel into Israel. The rabbis forbade bringing hallah or terumah into Israel from outside Israel. This was prohibited in order to discourage priests from going outside of Israel to bring back terumah or hallah (see also Sheviit 6:6).
The second issue mentioned is that some people would bring bikkurim before Shavuot. The rabbis also forbade this, for the verse in Exodus alludes to the fact that the first fruits should be brought on Shavuot.
I find several interesting things in this mishnah. First of all, the people who did not observe rabbinic law were actually acting in some ways stricter than the rabbis demanded. They were shlepping their hallah all the way from outside of Israel into the land of Israel. They were bringing their bikkurim before they were supposed to. The picture we get is of people who were zealous in their observance, and who were being calmed down by the rabbis. It is also interesting that those outside of Israel were not following rabbinic law. We know from many places that rabbinic influence was felt largely in Israel, where most rabbis lived. This mishnah supports the notion that outside of the land, Jews did not always follow, or perhaps didn’t even know, what rabbis were teaching. But to emphasize this does not mean that they were not observant of Jewish law.
Secondly, while the rabbis opposed these practices, they also bothered remembering them. The mishnah disapproves of what these people did, but it is almost as if the mishnah is also saying that although the practices are not sanctioned, they are still in some ways admirable.
The mishnah itself should be easily understood, and hence there is no explanation below.

ולא קבלו ממנו – to eat them is impossible, for they were defiled in the land of the heathens, and to burn them, is impossible since their ritual impurity is unknown, lest people say that we say sacred pure produce of the priest that was burned, and to return them to their places is impossible so that people don’t say that Terumah went out from the Land of Israel to outside the Land of Israel, but rather, we leave them until the eve of Passover and burn them [as part of the Hametz that is burned].

וחג הקציר בכורי מעשיך – for the two loaves are called Bikkurim/First Fruits, and we permit the [consumption of the] new [grain] in the Temple.

העלה בכורות מבבל ולא קבלו ממנו – as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23): “You shall consume the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks, in the presence of the LORD your God….”From the place that you bring the tithes of your new grain, you bring firstlings. From outside the Land of Israel where you do not bring the tithe of new grain, you do not bring firstlings.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.

הביא בכורי יין ושמן ולא קבלו ממני – because the did not cut them from the beginning of this, for had he cut them from the beginning of this, they would have been permitted, and such is taught in the Mishnah in the last chapter of Terumot (Chapter 11, Mishnah 3): “They do not bring first fruits in the form of liquid except for that which is produced from olives and grapes.”

Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. According to rabbinic law, one does not bring bekhorot, first-born animals, from outside the land of Israel.

פסח קטן – The Second Passover (see Numbers, Chapter 9, verses 1-15), and his children were small (i.e., minors) and only on the First Passover are they obligated (i.e. 14 Nisan) , for everyone is obligated in appearing [before God], as it is written (Exodus 23:17): “[Three times a year] all your males shall appear [before the Sovereign, the LORD],” but not on the Second Passover.

Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. The mistake of Joseph the priest was that he brought his first fruits in their processed form, as wine or oil, instead of bringing them as grapes or olives (see Terumot 11:3, for a conflicting opinion).

מאפמיא – we read it such, and it is the name of a place in Syria.

He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Pesah Sheni, also called Pesah Katan, is on the fourteenth of Iyyar, the month after Nissan (Numbers 9:11), during which the first “real” Pesah is celebrated. It is the “make-up date” for those who could not offer their Pesah sacrifice on the first Pesah. Joseph the priest brought his children and member’s of his household with him to Jerusalem. The rabbis directed Joseph the priest to return them home because one is obligated to bring one’s family to Jerusalem only during the first Pesah (see Exodus 23:17). Note that it is not prohibited to bring the family for Pesah Katan, it is merely unnecessary. As such, his kids and other members of his household could have stayed in Jerusalem. However, if they had stayed people would have thought that it was obligatory to bring the members of one’s household to on Pesah Sheni. Hence the rabbis told him that he should demonstrate this by bringing them back immediately.

כקונה בפרוורי ירושלים – the fields of Jerusalem and the villages surrounding it. It is the translation of the open space outside of a place called Parva (name of a Persian building and magian – from whom a compartment in the Temple was supposed to have been named – see Mishnah Middot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3).

Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem. The mishnah (and the tractate) ends with someone whose actions were accepted by the rabbis (whew!). Ariston (not a very Jewish sounding name) lived in Apamea which is in Syria. He brought his bikkurim from there to Jerusalem. The rabbis ruled that these were acceptable because when it comes to the laws of bikkurim, Syria is treated like a suburb of Jerusalem (Haffez Assad might not like this one). We should note that one does not bring terumah from Syria, but one does bring bikkurim. The reason for this difference is that a person who sets aside terumah is not obligated to bring it to the priests in Israel. Therefore we are concerned that priests will go outside of Israel to collect their terumah. In contrast, a person must bring his first fruits to Jerusalem. Therefore, there was no need to be concerned lest priests run off to collect their bikkurim outside of Israel. Congratulations! We have finished Hallah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Hallah is special among the tractates that we have learned because it is still observed to this day outside of the land of Israel. This is not the place for instruction as to how to observe this halakhah, but I hope that learning the tractate but I hope that it has given people “food for thought” (pun intended) as to the observance of this commandment. Of course, despite the fact that we learned that one doesn’t bring hallah from outside the land to Israel, there is no prohibition for bring delicious hallot to a hungry Talmudist living in the land of Israel…☺ Tomorrow we begin Tractate Orlah.