משנה: מַּפְרִישׁ חַלָּתוֹ קֶמַח אֵינָהּ חַלָּה וְגֶזֶל בְּיַד כֹּהֵן. הָעִיסָּה עַצְמָהּ חַייֶבֶת בַּחַלָּה. וְהַקֶּמַח אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר חַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה וַאֲסוּרָה לַזָּרִים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה וּקְפָשָׁהּ זָקֵן זָר אָמַר לָהֶן אַף הוּא קִלְקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ וְתִקֵּן לָאַחֵר. חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח חַייָבִין בְּחַלָּה הֵן וְסוּבָּן וּמוּרְסְנָן חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים חַייָבִין. נִיטָּל מוּרְסְנָן מִתּוֹכָן וְחָזַר לְתוֹכָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. שִׁיעוּר הַחַלָּה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה לְעַצְמוֹ וְהָעוֹשֶׂה לְמִשְׁתֶּה בְנוֹ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. נַתְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה לִמְכּוֹר לַשּׁוּק וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה. נִיטְמֵאת עִיסָּה שׁוֹגֶגֶת אוֹ אֲנוּסָה אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה נִטְמֵאת מֵזִידָה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא כֵּיצַד עִיסָּה טְהוֹרָה וְעִיסָּה טְמֵיאָה נוֹטֵל כְּדֵי חַלָּה מֵעִיסָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ וְנוֹתֵן פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה בְּאֶמְצַע כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. MISHNAH: If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to ḥallah; the flour, if it is a full measure64The flour given as ḥallah measures more than 5/4 qab., is obligated for ḥallah and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed65קבש stands for כבש, showing that the ק had lost its guttural sound. He took and ate it without it being given to him to show that it had no holiness. it. He said to them, he destroyed himself66He sinned. and put others in order67Others who follow his teaching will not sin since they would follow rabbinical instructions; their sins in this matter will all be charged to the rabbi who gave the wrong instructions..
Five quarters71The measure involved is discussed in the Halakhah. of coarse flour72The same holds for fine flour which never contains bran. It is stated here that milled grain is called “coarse flour” before being sifted. are obligated for ḥallah; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned73Usually the bran is sifted out before the flour is used for bread dough. Since normally bran is not returned, the rules for flour mixed with bran are like those for flour mixed with rice flour., it is free.
The rate82If a dough is subject to ḥallah, the amount to be taken is 1/24 by rabbinic decree. Since ḥallah is a heave, it has no lower limit in biblical law. The rabbinic amount is more than twice the rabbinic rate of heave which is one in 50. of ḥallah is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman83In contrast to the baker she has no store but bakes at home to sell out of her basket on the market. who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure84In this case, the ḥallah must be burned and there is no reason to give the Cohen a larger portion. Today, when all dough is impure, these rabbinic rules have been disestablished and biblical law reinstated. by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded.
Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure95This is forbidden for heave, Terumot 2:2.. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for ḥallah from dough from which ḥallah was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle96Since food less in volume than an egg cannot transmit impurity (Terumot 5:1), the two doughs can be put in the same vessel to be earmarked for heave together (Terumot 2, Note 6). The Mishnah is quoted in Babli Soṭah30a/b; there a version is quoted which has “gives the volume of an egg”. The explanation is that the impure dough is impure in the first degree (cf. Berakhot Chapter 8, Note 46). It makes the dough in between impure in the second degree. The pure dough, while ṭevel, is under the rules of profane food for which no third degree exists. Therefore, the dough in the middle cannot transmit impurity to the pure dough irrespective of size. This is the position taken by Maimonides in his Code (Bikkurim 7:12). so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.
הלכה: אָמַר לָהֶן אַף הוּא קִלְקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ וְתִקֵּן לָאֲחֵרִים. קִלְקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ דָּאֲכָלָהּ וְאִיתְעֲנָשׁ וְתִקֵּן לָאֲחֵרִים דְּאִינּוּן אָֽכְלִין וְתָלֵיי בֵּיהּ. אִית תַּנֵּי תַּנָּיֵי תִּקֵּן לְעַצְמוֹ וְקִלְקֵל לָאֲחֵרִים. תִּקֵּן לְעַצְמוֹ מִכָּל־מָקוֹם אֲכָלָהּ. וְקִלְקֵל לָאֲחֵרִים דְּאִינּוּן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר וְהִיא חַייֶבֶת. HALAKHAH: “He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order.” He destroyed himself by eating and exposed himself to punishment; he put others in order since they eat and unload [their sin] on him. Some Tannaїm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since anyhow he ate. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.
רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי קַב טִיבֵּרָנִי חַייָב בְּחַלָּה. חַד חֲלִיטָר שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵיזִיל עֲבִיד אַרְבַּע וּפְלִיג. וְיֹאמַר לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא וּפְלִיג. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קַבַּייָא בְּאַתְרֵיהוֹן רוֹבְעַיָּא אִיזְדָּרְעוּן וְיֹאמַר לֵיהּ חֲמִשָּׁה פָּרָא צִיבְחָר. שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי סָפֵק חִיּוּב חַלָּה. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah74Which is larger than the standard qab of the Mishnah. Mishnah Idiut 1:2 states that originally the amount was fixed at 1.5 qab. Tosephta Idiut 1:2 reads: “The Sages estimated 7 + something qabim which are 5 quarters in Sepphoris or 1.5 qab in Jerusalem.” According to Rashi (Pesaḥim 48b), Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (Idiut 1:2) the argument is the following: Since Num. 15:21–21 speaks about “the beginning of your doughs,” the reference is to the size of the doughs made in the desert, which was 1 ‘omer of manna. The ‘omer is defined in Ex. 16:36 as a tenth of an ephah which is 3 seah or 18 qab, 72 quarter qabim. This makes the ‘omer 7.2 biblical quarter qabim. The Jerusalem small measure is defined as 1/6 larger than the biblical, the Sepphoris 1/6 larger than the Jerusalem. This makes the ephah 60 Jerusalem quarters and 50 Sepphoris ones and the amount subject to ḥallah is 7.2 biblical quarters = 6 Jerusalem quarters = 5 Sepphoris quarters.
Maimonides defines the qab(Sepphoris) as 4×4×10.8 digits. The digit is 1/24 of a cubit normally taken to be 55 cm; this makes the qab 2101 cm3 = 2.1 liter and the amount of dry flour so that a dough made from it should be subject to ḥallah equal to 2.65 liter. A Jerusalem qab would then be 2.52 liter and it is possible that the Tiberian measure was equal to the Jerusalem one and R. Yannai’s statement errs on the side of caution, in the spirit of the last sentence of this paragraph.. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate75Make batches of 4 quarters of dough and separate the batches so they will never touch. Since fried dough is not subject to ḥallah by biblical law, it is preferable to prepare the dough so the question of ḥallah should never arise.. Could he say to him, three and separate76Why did he say “make four” without saying what he meant? Could it be four qabim or three qabim or maybe three quarters of a qab?? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, qabim in their places are measured by quarters77In his place, the qab was never used as a commercial measure; the standard was the quarter of about 0.5 liter.. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of ḥallah.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דֶּרֶךְ עִיסָּה שָׁנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא. דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם אֵינָהּ חַייֶבֶת בַּחַלָּה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָהּ דָּגָן כְּשִׁיעוּר. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְּרִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָא בַּר לוֹלִיתָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דִּבְרִי הַכֹּל הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי הָדָא מִילְתָא אָמַר דִּכְװָתָהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דֶּרֶךְ עִיסָּה שָׁנוּ. וְכָאן מִּכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיטָּל מוּרְסְנָן וְחָזַר לְתוֹכָן אֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ עִיסָּה. 78This refers to the last sentence of the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made79As noted at the end, mixing the bran in again was not usually done in talmudic times.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said80Tosephta 2:1: If somebody makes dough from grain and rice, it is never subject to ḥallah unless it contain the full measure of grain. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, bran has the status of non-cereal. it is never subject to ḥallah unless it contain the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita81He is not otherwise mentioned. in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. In this case, since the bran was removed and then put in again, it is not the way dough is made.
תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽמְרוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. וִנַחְתּוֹם אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנַּחְתּוֹם עֵינוֹ יָפָה בְעִיסָּתוֹ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת רָעָה בְעִיסָּתוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא מִשֵּׁם (הוּא זֶה ) וְלֹא מִטַּעַם זֶה. אֶלָּא וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת ײ֨ לְאַהֲרוֹן הַכֹּהֵן עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיִינָתְנוּ לַכֹּהֵן בִּכְהוּנָתוֹ. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנַּחְתּוֹם עִיסָּתוֹ מְרוּבָּה וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עִיסָּתוֹ מְעוּטָה וְאֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן. It was stated86A different text in Tosephta 1:7. In Sifry Num. 110 there is another version, based on Num. 15:21, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In Sifry, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows ḥallah to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, why did they say the private person one in 24 but the baker one in 48? Because the baker is generous87This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on Sifry to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the ḥallah which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with his dough but the private person is stingy86A different text in Tosephta 1:7. In Sifry Num. 110 there is another version, based on Num. 15:21, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In Sifry, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows ḥallah to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60. with his dough. But the Sages say, not because of this category or reason, but (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” they should be given to the priest in his status as priest88Compare Terumot 5, Note 22.. The baker makes a large dough with enough to make a gift to the Cohen but the private person makes a small dough that would not be enough to make a gift to the Cohen89The percentages given to the Cohen must be larger than the percentages fixed for heave since dough is perishable and ḥallah must be delivered immediately whereas heave of agricultural produce can be accumulated until it reaches the required amounts..
וְהָתַנִּינָן הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה לְעַצְמוֹ וְהָעוֹשֶׂה לְמִשְׁתֶּה בְנוֹ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. שֶׁלֹּא תַחְלוֹק לְעִיסַּת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת .וְהָתַנִּינָן וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לְבֵיתָהּ עֵינָהּ רָעָה בְעִיסָּתָהּ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק עֵינָהּ יָפָה בְעִיסָּתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתְנִיתָא בְּלִימּוּדֶת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרֶשֶׁת אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה אֲבָל בְּלִימּוּדֶת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרֶשֶׁת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה נִיתְנֵי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַחוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר. But did we not state: “If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast90Then he bakes a large quantity and the argument of the Sages does not apply., one in 24?” Not to make a distinction in doughs of a private person. But did we not state: “And also a woman91She bakes at home and by the preceding argument should not change her rate of 1 in 24. who makes to sell on the market, one in 48?” When she makes it for herself, she is stingy87This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on Sifry to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the ḥallah which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with her dough; when she makes to sell on the market she is generous87This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on Sifry to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the ḥallah which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with her dough. Rebbi92Probably of a name is missing. said, the Mishnah speaks about one93The woman selling bread on the market gets the barker’s rate only if she regularly bakes for the market. If she does it only occasionally, she is held to the rate of 1 in 24 in accordance with the explanation given for the infrequent wedding feast. used to give one in 48, but about one who is used to give one in 24, we should state that “the sinner should not be rewarded94If she works only occasionally for sale, she should not be invited to give less for her domestic bread.”.
וְאֵין הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַקְפִּיד עַל תַּעֲרוּבָתוֹ אֵין הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף וּשֶׁאֵין מַקְפִּיד עַל תַּעֲרוּבָתוֹ הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרֵף. עִיסָּה טְמֵאָה עִיסָּה טְהוֹרָה עָשׂוּ כְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מַקְפִּיד עַל תַּעֲרוּבָתוֹ. Does the house not combine them together97Why does R. Eliezer need the expedient with food less than the volume of an egg? Could one not say that the house is a container which earmarks the two doughs together?? Things which one objects to being mixed the house will not combine together; if one would not object to their being mixed the house will combine them. The status of impure and pure dough is that one is assumed to object to their being mixed.
וְעִיסָּתָהּ חַלָּה. אֲבָל בְּעִיסָּה שְׁנִייָה אֵין לַשֵּׁינִי מַגַּע אֶצֶל הַטֵּבֵל. If the dough is ḥallah98R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti read: ועיסתה תחילה “if the dough is [impure in the] first degree.”. But a dough of secondary [impurity] has no [invalidating] touch for ṭevel99A dough impure in the second degree which touches profane pure dough does not transmit impurity. This proves that ṭevel goes under the rules of profane food; cf. Note 96..
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לַעִאיי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא בְּלַח. כֵּיצַד כָּבַשׁ זֵיתִין בְּטוּמְאָה וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לְתוֹרְמָן בְּטָהֳרָה מֵבִיא מַשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁאֵין בְּפִיו כְּבֵיצָה וּמְמַלֵּא אוֹתוֹ זֵתִים וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל פִּי חָבִית. וְנִמְצָא תוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. לָמָּה לִי פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה. אֲפִילוּ כְבֵיצָה וְלֹא פֵּירוּרִין אִינּוּן. שֶׁלֹּא לְטַמְּאוֹת זֵיתִים הַרְבֶּה. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין לָךְ קָרוּי לַח אֶלָּא יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן בִּלְבַד. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא קוֹרָה אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי בּוֹרוֹת. שְׁתֵּי קוֹרוֹת לְבוֹר אֶחָד. [נִיחָא קוֹרָה אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי בּוֹרוֹת. אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי קוֹרוֹת לְבוֹר אֶחָד] מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ אֵין כּולּוֹ טָמֵא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא תִּפְתַּר שֶׁהָיָה בְדַעְתּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּפִיסָה אַחַת וְנִמְלַךְ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן שְׁתֵּי תְפִיסוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְּשֶׁשִּׁילֶּה וּמִשֶּׁקִּיפֶּהּ שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לְתוֹרְמָן בְּטָהֳרָה. אֲבָל אִם נִיטְמָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא קִיפֶּה וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא שִׁילֶּה לֹא בְדָא. רִבִּי טָבִי רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה בְּשֵׁם יַנַּאי הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵיהּ וְלֹא הוֹרֵי אָמַר תַּרְתֵּיי כָּל־קֳבֵיל תְּרֵי אִינּוּן. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ וְהָא רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן מוֹדֵי. אֲפִילוּ כֵן לֹא הוֹרֵי. 100This paragraph is from Terumot 2:1 and explained there, Note 35-44. It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?]101This sentence is in Terumot and here in the Rome ms., missing in the Leyden ms. Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer102In Terumot: “Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.” In view of the penultimate sentence, the formulation here is preferable.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi]103From the Terumot text; name missing here in both mss. and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.