משנה: נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּתַן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עִיסָּה לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. נְתָנָהּ לוֹ מַתָּנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִילְגֵּל חַייֶבֶת. וּמִשֶּׁגִּילְגֵּל פְטוּרָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה עִם הַנָּכְרִי אִם אֵין בְּשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשִׁיעוּר חַלָּה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּייַר וְהָֽיְתָה לוֹ עִיסָּה אִם נַעֲשִׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּייַר פָּטוּר. וּמִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּייַר חַייָב. וְאִם סָפֵק חַייָב וְאֵין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַקְּרִימָה בַתַּנּוּר. MISHNAH: A dough57Flour or dough not fully mixed. Property of the Non-Jew is not subject to Jewish ritual law. which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure58If the Jew contributed less than 5 quarters of flour..
If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made64While he was undergoing the conversion ceremony, his servants made dough in his house. before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth65As penalty if the ḥallah was misappropriated; cf. Mishnah Terumot6:1. because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven66The question is whether R. Aqiba disagrees with all preceding statements that designate rolling (of wheat dough, or compacting of barley dough) as final processing or he holds that only baking is final processing for the proselyte..
הלכה: מָה בֵינָהּ לְעִיסַּת אַרְנוֹנָא. שֶׁמָּה אֵינָהּ חַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה. תַּמָּן בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא שֶׁמָּא יִמְלוֹךְ הַגּוֹי לִיטְּלָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא לְדַעְתּוֹ הִיא תְלוּיָה. HALAKHAH: What is the difference between this and a dough of annona? Is the latter not obligated for ḥallah59Tosephta 1:4: “An annona dough (which has to be delivered to the army; cf. Peah 1, Note 85) is obligated since one is responsible until it is delivered.” The Babli (Pesaḥim 6a) considers the possibility that delivery of annona may be replaced by a cash payment. In that case, the annona dough is clearly the Jew’s and is not necessarily made exclusively for the Gentile government. This seems not to be the position of the Yerushalmi; it might indicate a difference between Roman and Persian administrative practices.? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it60Medieval authors (e. g., R. Simson, R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, R. Nissim Gerondi) read: “Maybe the Gentile decides not to take it.” It is also the reading of the ms. of R. S. Cirillo; this leads one to suspect that the reading is an attempt at harmonization with the Babli (Note 59).
In a second opinion, the Babli holds that ḥallah of the annona is purely rabbinical since people might think that the person baking does not give ḥallah for his own bread. This is not the Yerushalmi’s general attitude; cf. Kilaim 2, Notes 34–40.. But here it depends on the latter’s opinion.
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה מְלַאי שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּפוֹעֲלִין גּוֹיִם עוֹשִׂין לְתוֹכוֹ חַייָב בְּחַלָּה. מְלַאי שֶׁלְגּוֹי וּפוֹעֲלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין בְּתוֹכוֹ פָּטוּר מִן הַחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוּף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן נָכְרִי שֶׁנָּתַן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ עִיסָּה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. Rebbi Jehudah stated61Tosephta 1:3, an anonymous statement.: “If the inventory belongs to a Jew but Gentile workers make it, it is subject to ḥallah. If the inventory belongs to a Gentile and Jewish workers make it, it is not subject to ḥallah.” Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated this: “A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah.”
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בְּשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשִׁיעוּר. יֵיעָשֶׂה כְּקַב מִכָּן וְקַב מִכָּן וְקַב הַגּוֹי בְּאֶמְצַע. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָה וְאֵינוֹ מְעוּרָב עַל יְדֵי גוֹיִם. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle62Why should the dough of a Jew made in partnership with a Gentile ever be subject to ḥallah? In Mishnah 4:3 it is stated that if a dough is made in three parts of one qab each, two of wheat and one of rice, and the rice dough separates the two pieces of wheat dough, there is no obligation of ḥallah since the exempt rice prevents the two wheat doughs from being counted together. Similarly, the exempt flour belonging to the Gentile should prevent the Jew’s flour from being counted as an entity.? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּייַר וְהָֽיְתָה לוֹ פָרָה נִשְׁחֶטֶת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּייַר פָּטוּר מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּייַר חַייָב. וְאִם סָפֵק פָּטוּר שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָייָה. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר סָפֵק פָּטוּר. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר סָפֵק חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא אִיתְתָּבַת קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי וְאָמַר מִי יֹאמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר נוֹטֵל הוּא דָמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְיַפְרִשׁ תַּמָּן וְיִטּוֹל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי חַלָּה שֶׁהִיא טֵבֵל וּבַעֲוֹן מִיתָה מַפְרִישׁ וְלֹא יִטּוֹל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל שֵׁם הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. There, we have stated67Mishnah Ḥulin 10:4. The chapter deals with the obligatory gifts to the Cohen from profane slaughter: forearm, jawbone and first stomach (Deut. 18:3). These gifts are totally profane; no holiness is attached to them at any moment. Therefore, a Cohen who claims these gifts would have to prove by legal standards that the gifts are due. Because of the nature of the doubt, this proof is precluded.: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe68Since the duty of ḥallah is questionable, he suggests that the proselyte sell his ḥallah to a Cohen.! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there69In the case of profane slaughter, why can we not require that the Cohen’s gifts be sold exclusively to Cohanim? and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant70There is no problem whatsoever; the same rules apply in both cases. The Cohen’s share in a profanely slaughtered animal is profane; therefore, all rules of civil claims apply. Ḥallah is separated because of religious scruples; no money can be collected since the proselyte cannot prove that he is not obligated..
אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה שְׁנֵי גוֹיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְחִלְּקוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ זֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ חַייָבִין שֶׁלֹּא הָֽיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת חוֹבָה וְנִפְטְרוּ. שְׁנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְחִלְּקוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ זֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ פְּטוּרִין שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת חוֹבָה וְנִפְטְרוּ. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁנֵי קַבִּין וְחִלְּקוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ זֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה עַל שֶׁלּוֹ. נִיחָא חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַייָב. חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי מַהוּ. כְּלוּם חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי חַייָב לֹא מַחְמַת חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַייָב וְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי פָּטוּר. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated71The Gentiles made a dough which, if made by a Jew, would have been subject to ḥallah. They split the dough in two and converted to Judaism. Then each of them took his part, made from less than 5 quarters of dough, and added to reach the threshhold of ḥallah. This then are new doughs and obligated.
The entire paragraph is based on the anonymous opinion that forming the dough for baking causes the obligation of ḥallah. For Rebbi Aqiba, the questions are irrelevant. because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two qabim, split72One has to explain with R. Joseph Caro that they made the dough with the explicit understanding that they would split before the final shaping. Then the obligated dough would become exempt at the time of splitting. If they make the dough in common and only later decide to split, it is not different from smaller breads taken together in a basket where the basket combines them, cf. Mishnah 2:4. R. Abraham ben David (Note to Maimonides, Bikkurim 7:9) declares the sentence to be meaningless., and then each of them added to it, are exempted because they were potentially obligated but exempted. A Jew and a Gentile made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated73This is more or less the case treated in the Mishnah.. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew74R. Abraham ben David reads: Would the Jew’s part not be obligated only because of the Gentile? This reading is accepted by R. Joseph Caro who explains that without the Gentile’s flour the Jew’s dough certainly would be exempt. But if the Gentile becomes Jewish and is now obligated for ḥallah, the question makes sense the way our text is written.? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt75Maimonides (Bikkurim 7:10) takes this as a declarative sentence. R. Joseph Caro points out that Maimonides goes out of his way to spell out that the Jew and the Gentile make the entire dough in partnership, implying that at the start they did not intend to split. Therefore, had the Gentile already been Jewish the dough would have been obligated when kneaded.
R. Abraham ben David declares that the sentence makes sense only if read as a rhetorical question: “The Jew’s part is obligated, can the Gentile’s be exempt?”, which implies that both doughs are obligated..
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר קְרִימָה בַתַּנּוּר. חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מוֹדֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לַחֲכָמִים בְּעִיסַּת הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁגִּילְגּוּלָהּ טִיבּוּלָהּ. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מוֹדֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לַחֲכָמִים בְּעִיסַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁגִּילְגּוּלָהּ פּוֹטְרָהּ. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֵין מֵירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּמְקוֹם הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אוֹמֵר רִבִּי יוֹנָה הָדָא דְכַהֲנָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מָן דִּאָמַר גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין גִּילגּוּל פּוֹטֵר אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּנִין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי. שַׁנְייָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב וְכָל־מַעֲשַׂר הָאָרֶץ מִזֶּרַע הָאָרֶץ. וְהָכָא לֵית כְּתִיב מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ. מִלֶּחֶם וְלֹא כָל־לֶחֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל מִן הָדָא דְרַבָּנִין אֲנָן יָֽלְפִין דְּלֵית הָדָא דְכַהֲנָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. כְּמָה דְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי. כֵּן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הַגּוֹי וְאֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts76In R. Eleazar’s opinion, R. Aqiba accepts Mishnah 3:3 without change. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that “layman” is mentioned only as contrast to “Temple”. This seems to contradict the statements in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 5–6.. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt77Shaping the heap is the end of grain processing, which triggers the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Aqiba states in Mishnah Menaḥot 10:4 that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the ‘omer offering is obligated for tithes. Since the cut grain has to be cleaned before milling, that cleaning process is the equivalent of shaping the heap in a regular harvest. The anonymous majority holds everywhere that all Temple grain is exempt from heave and tithes.
Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to ḥallah.. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt78This argument is brought without a dissenting voice in Babli Menaḥot 67a.. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power79The Babli, Menaḥot 67a, holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic.? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.80The ethnicity of the farmer is not mentioned. The questioner, and the rabbis quoted in the last sentence, must hold with R. Meïr that possession by a Gentile does not remove the obligations imposed on produce of the Land; cf. Peah 4, Notes 129–131.” But is here81In the laws of ḥallah. not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread82If this מ is partitive, there is no reason why in Lev. 27:30 it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected.. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple83It is implied that in the matter of grain grown by a Gentile in the Land, R. Meïr reports the position of R. Aqiba.
A Genizah text reads רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Temple’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple”. This may be the better text..