משנה: שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְקַב אוֹרֶז וְקַב תְּרוּמָה בְאֶמְצַע אֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפִין. דָּבָר שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתוֹ בְאֶמְצַע מִצְטָֽרְפִין שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַייֵב בַּחַלָּה. קַב חָדָשׁ וְקַב יָשָׁן שֶׁנָּֽשְׁכוּ זֶה בְזֶה רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר יִטּוֹל מִן הָאֶמְצַע. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. הַנּוֹטֵל חַלָּה מִן הַקַּב רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר חַלָּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ חַלָּה. שְׁנֵי קַבִּין שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתָן שֶׁל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְשֶׁל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְחָזַר וַעֲשָׂאָן עִיסָה אַחַת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַייְבִין נִמְצָא חוּמְרוֹ קוּלּוֹ. MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or22Reading of the Rome ms. and the Constantinople print: או תרומה; this probably is a gloss. heave between them do not combine23Two loaves made of bread flour each of which is too small to be subject to ḥallah are both touching an exempt dough (which is either from material intrinsically exempt or from flour exempt because of its status of sanctity) cannot become obligated since the exempt dough acts as a barrier as if it were of iron. But a dough which is not exempt cannot separate, even if it now is no longer subject to ḥallah.. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah.
If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another38While two doughts together are obligated for ḥallah as noted in the previous Halakhah, it is forbidden to give heave from one year’s harvest for another year’s (Mishnah Terumot 1:5). Everybody agrees that ḥallah must be given from both kinds of grain; the question is only how this has to be done., Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah.
If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity39Of R. Aqiba who treats ḥallah from less than the minimal volume as genuine ḥallah. becomes a leniency.
הלכה: נִיתְנֵי אוֹרֶז וְלֹא נִיתְנֵי תְרוּמָה. אִילּוּ תַנִּינָן אוֹרֶז וְלֹא תַנִּינָן תְּרוּמָה הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין אוֹרֶז עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִמִּינוֹ אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. תְּרוּמָה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִיא מִמִּינָהּ מִצְטָרֵף. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי תְרוּמָה. אוֹ אִילּוּ תַנִּינָן תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא תַנִּינָן אוֹרֶז הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין תְּרוּמָה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִיא אֵינָהּ נִגְרֶרֶת אֵינָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת. אוֹרֶז עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא נִגְרָר מִצְטָרֵף. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי אוֹרֶז וְצוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי תְרוּמָה. HALAKHAH: Should one have stated “rice” but not “heave”? If we had stated “rice” but not “heave”, we would have said that rice does not combine because it is not of that kind24Rice dough is never subject to ḥallah., but heave25Of bread dough., which is of that kind, should combine. It is necessary to state “heave.” If we had stated “heave” but not “rice”, we would have said that heave does not combine because it is not dragged in26Dema‘ dough containing heave flour is exempt from ḥallah (Mishnah 3:2)., but rice, which is dragged in27Dough containing rice is subject to ḥallah if it tastes like bread (Mishnah 3:6)., should combine. It is necessary to state “rice” and “heave”.
קַב אוֹרֶז אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף קַב מְדוּמָּע אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. קַב תְּרוּמָה אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. קַב הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף. קַב מִין אַחֵר מְצָרֵף. קַב אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת מְצָרֵף. קַב חָדָשׁ מְצָרֵף. קַב דָּבָר שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתוֹ מִן הָאֶמְצַע מִצְטָרֵף. וְרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵי קַב חַלָּה מַהוּ שֶׁיְּצָרֵף. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָׁאוּל קַב הֶקְדֵּשׁ מְצָרֵף. קַב חַלָּה אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף. מַה בֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמַה בֵין חַלָּה. הֶקְדֵּשׁ רָאוּי הוּא לִפְדּוֹתוֹ וּלְחַייְבוֹ. חַלָּה אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִפְדּוֹתָהּ וּלְחַייְבָהּ. “28In different formulation, Tosephta 2:3–4. A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind29In the Tosephta, for wheat dough this is restricted to spelt which can combine both with wheat and with barley. The Tosephta follows R. Joḥanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah; the Yerushalmi baraita in the Leyden version follows the Tanna of the reformulated statement (Note 19); the Rome ms. reads אינו מצרף “it does not combine”; possibly following the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah 2. combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines30The two doughs at the two sides are made from last year’s grain harvest, the one in the middle is from this year’s grain; cf. Mishnah 4.. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine31This is a case of the Mishnah..” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated32One could have argued that ḥallah is a heave; then R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question is answered in the Mishnah..
חֲצִי קַב חִטִּים וַחֲצִי קַב שְׂעוֹרִים וַחֲצִי קַב כּוּסְמִין נוֹטֵל מִן הַכּוּסְמִין לְפִי מַה שֶׁהֵן. קַב חִטִּים וְקַב שְׂעוֹרִים וְקַב כּוּסְמִין תּוֹרֵם מִכָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶׁהוּא. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא קַב חִטִּין קַב שְׂעוֹרִין קַב כּוּסְמִין הָא קַב חִטִּים וְקַב שְׂעוֹרִין וְקַב כּוּסְמִין בְּאֶמְצַע לֹא בְדָא. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה חֲבֵרוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין בָּעוּ מַה בֵּין כּוּסְמִין בְּאֶמְצַע מַה בֵּין שְׂעוֹרִין בְּאֶמְצַע. רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אֵין הַכּוּסְמִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין עִם הַחִטִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְמִינוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא מְדַמֶּה לוֹ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינוֹ מְדַמֶּה לוֹ. “Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed33Tosephta 2:5. There, the reading is: “He takes from the spelt.” The meaning is the same as in the baraita here, that the entire heave is taken from spelt since that combines with both wheat and barley.. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.34A similar text in Tosephta 2:4: “A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt do combine. If he takes heave, he takes from each one separately since one does not give heave from one species for another.” In this version, the rules for ḥallah and heave are different; the discussion shows that this is not the position of the Yerushalmi. It follows that the baraita represents a tradition different from the Tosephta. It is not necessary to assume with Maimonides that the qab here is a larger measure, equal to 5/4 standard qab which causes separate obligations of ḥallah. As R. Eliahu Fulda explains, the barley in the middle is also subject to ḥallah; it is not different from dough of which ḥallah already was taken. Therefore, the obligation of ḥallah exists and has to be satisfied following the rules of heave.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.
רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי אַף לְעִנְייָן מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה כֵן. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן הָיוּ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ חִייוּב בִּכְפָר חֲנַנְיָה וְחָמֵשׁ חִיּוּב בִּכְפָר עוֹתְנַי. וְחָמֵשׁ פָּטוּר בְּצִיפּוֹרִין. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן דָּבָר שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה חַלָּתוֹ מִן הָאֶמְצַע מְצָרֵף. אוֹף הָכָא כֵן. אִין תֵּימַר שַׁנְייָא הִיא חַלָּה שֶׁהוּא כְנָשׁוּךְ וְהָהֵן שִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל לֹא כְנָשׁוּךְ הוּא. מָצִינוּ חַלָּה מֵהֲלָכָה לֹא מָצִינוּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה מֵהֲלָכָה. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe36Lev. 27:32; from the verse it is clear that the minimum number of newborn animals subject to tithe is 10. The Mishnah (Bekhorot 9:7) states that animals are close to one another to be counted together for tithes if they are within grazing distance of one another; this is fixed at 16 mil. It is stated that the distance from Kefar Ḥananiah to Sepphoris is 16 mil, from Sepphoris to Kefar Othnai also 16 mil. Tosephta (Bekhorot 7:3) and Babli (Bekhorot 55a) state that there is an obligation of animal tithe if the total number of newborn animals of a single owner in Kefar Ḥananiah, Sepphoris, and Kefar Othnai is at least ten with at least one being at Sepphoris. R. Jonah now asks whether it is sufficient that the owner had animals at Sepphoris which were in the past counted for tithe, similar to the situation described in Mishnah 3.? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Ḥananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that ḥallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find ḥallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice37The rule of Mishnah 3 is rabbinic; for animal tithe only biblical standards apply. R. Jonah’s question is answered in the negative..
יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כּוּסְמִין וְחִיטִּין שְׁנֵי מִינִים הֵן. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא מְדַמֶּה לוֹ אַתְּ אוֹמֵר מְצָרֵף. חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנָן כּוּסְמִין וְחִיטִּין שְׁנֵי מִינִין וְאֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם טוֹעִין לוֹמַר שֶׁתּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן מִין אֶחָד הוּא אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן אַף הוּא סָבוּר לוֹמַר שֶׁתּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other40Terumot Mishnah 2:4.. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other41This is forbidden, Terumot Mishnah 1:5. It follows that the prohibition of the rabbis is rabbinic, not biblical. R. Eliahu Fulda points out that the argument is weak since even R. Ismael requires that ḥallah be taken in such a way that dough from both sides is taken; the difference between him and the rabbis is only whether ḥallah can be taken together or must be taken separately..
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַפֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן. עָבַר וְהִפְרִישׁ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. וְרַבָּנִין מְדַמִּין לָהּ לִתְבוּאָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ. עָבַר וְהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנָּה חַלָּה אֵינָהּ חַלָּה. חָֽזְרוּ לוֹמַר אֵינָן דּוֹמִין לֹא לַפֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן וְלֹא לִתְבוּאָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ. אֶלָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה עַל הַפֵּירוֹת הָאֵילוּ לִכְשֶׁיִּתְלְשׁוּ וְנִתְלְשׁוּ. וְרַבָּנִין מְדַמִּין לָהּ לוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה עַל הַפֵּירוֹת הָאֵילּוּ לִכְשֶׁיִּתְלְשׁוּ. Rebbi Aqiba compares it to not fully processed produce; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is heave42Mishnah Terumot 1:10.. But the rabbis compare it to produce not yet one-third ripe; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is not heave43Mishnah Ḥallah 1:3, following R. Eleazar.. They had second thoughts and said, it is similar neither to not fully processed produce nor to produce not yet one-third ripe44Since it also must follow the majority opinion in Mishnah Ḥallah 1:3.! But Rebbi Aqiba compares it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken, and they were taken; but the rabbis compare it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken45Everybody agrees that produce tentatively designated as heave cannot be heave if there is nothing it can be given for. Similarly, they will hold that ḥallah tentatively designated for the case the dough will reach critical size cannot be ḥallah if no obligated dough is available at the time of designation..
הֲווֹן בָּעֵי מֵימַר מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה נִיטַּל חַלָּה מִקַּב חַלָּה מֵהֲלָכָה. הָא מִדְבַר תּוֹרָה לֹא. מִן מַה דְתַנִּינָן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה פוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַייְבִין הָדָא אָֽמְרָה אֲפִילוּ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards46Since the combined dough of 2 qab is subject to biblical ḥallah in everybody’s opinion, R. Aqiba must declare ḥallah from a single qab as biblical ḥallah.
In R. Aqiba’s statement, “one qab” must be taken litterally; it is not an expression meaning “less than 5/4 qab” since in Mishnah Idiut 1:2, Shammai is reported to fix the obligation of ḥallah at one qab (and Hillel at 2 qabim). R. Aqiba must hold that any amount which is declared ḥallah in any tradition must be recognized as biblical ḥallah (Maimonides in his Commentary.).
נִמְצָא חוּמְרוֹ קוּלּוֹ. אִית תַּנּוֹיֵי תַּנֵּי קוּלּוֹ חוּמְרוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר חוּמְרוֹ קוּלּוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. קוּלּוֹ חוּמְרוֹ רַבָּנִין. “It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis.