dough

If a needle or a ring was found in the ground of an oven, and they can be seen but they don't stick out into the oven, if one bakes dough and it touches them, the [oven] is unclean. Regarding which dough did they speak? Medium dough. If they are found in the plaster of an oven with a tightly fitting lid: If the oven is unclean, they are unclean, If the oven is clean, they are clean. If they are found in the stopper of a jar: If on the sides, they are unclean. If opposite the mouth, they are clean. If they can be seen in it, but they do not enter its airspace, they are clean. If they sink into it, and there is [plaster] underneath them as thick as garlic peel, they are clean.

How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects.

Bakers’ baking-boards are susceptible to impurity, but those used by householders are clean. But if he dyed them red or saffron they are susceptible to impurity. If a bakers’ shelf was fixed to a wall: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is clean And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. The bakers' frame is susceptible to impurity but one used by householders is clean. If he made a rim on its four sides it is susceptible to impurity, but if one side was open it is clean. Rabbi Shimon says: if he fixed it so that one can cut the dough upon it, it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, a rolling-pin is susceptible to impurity.

[With regard to] a flagon that is full of pure liquid, the flagon is defiled with seven days' impurity but the liquid remains clean. But if one poured it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. If a woman was kneading [in the upper story] at a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean with seven days impurity, but the dough remains clean But if one turned it out into another vessel, it becomes unclean. Bet Hillel changed their opinion and taught as Bet Shammai.

What is [the posture] of examining negaim? A man is inspected in the posture of one that hoes or one that gathers olives. And a woman [is inspected in the posture] of one who is arranging dough and one who nurses her child, and one that weaves at an upright loom if the nega was in the right armpit. Rabbi Judah says: also in the posture of one that spins flax if it was within the left armpit. Just as [is the posture] for examining for the nega, so too [is the posture] for shaving hair.

Pieces of dough which are stuck to each other or loaves stuck to each other, if one of them was defiled from a sheretz, they all become unclean in the first degree; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having first degree uncleanness. If one of them was defiled by a liquid they all have second degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as have second degree uncleanness. If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all become have third degree uncleanness; If they were then separated they are still regarded as having third degree of uncleanness.

A piece of dough that had first degree uncleanness, and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the first degree. If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the first degree but all the others are have only second degree uncleanness. If [the original piece] had second degree uncleanness and then others became stuck to it, they all become unclean in the second degree; If they were separated, it still remains unclean in the second degree but all the others are only unclean in the third degree. If [the original piece] had third degree uncleanness, and then other became stuck to it, it remains unclean in the third degree but all the others remain clean, whether they were subsequently separated from it or whether they were not separated.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

Rabbi Yose says: a condition of doubt in the case of liquids is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels. How so? If there were two jars, the one unclean and the other clean, and he made dough with the contents of one of them and a doubt arose as to whether he prepared it with the contents of the unclean, or of the clean one, such is "a condition of doubt in the case of liquids [which] is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels."

If a kneading trough was sloping downwards and there was dough in the higher part and dripping moisture in the lower part, then three pieces that jointly make up the bulk of an egg cannot be combined together, but two are combined. Rabbi Yose says: the two also cannot be combined unless they compress liquid between them. If the liquid was level, even though the piece was the size of a mustard seed they are combined together. Rabbi Dosa says: crumbled food cannot be combined together.

When do they become clean? Bet Shammai say: when their contents have been increased [by more than the original quantity] and they overflow. Bet Hillel say: when their contents have been increased [by more than their original quantity] even if they do not overflow. Rabbi Shimon says: when they overflow although their contents have not been so increased. [These] are valid [for preparing dough] for hallah and for the washing of the hands.

The matted hair on the heart and on the beard and on a woman's hidden parts; pus outside the eye, hardened pus outside a wound and the plaster over it, dried-up juice, clots of excrement on the body, dough under the finger nails, sweat-crumbs, miry clay, potter's clay, and road-clay. What is meant by 'miry clay’? This means the clay in pits, for it is written: "He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay" (Psalms 40:3). "Potter's clay" according to its literal sense. Rabbi Yose declares potter's clay clean, but clay for putty unclean. And "road-clay." These become like road-side pegs in these [kinds of clay] one may not immerse oneself nor immerse [other things] with them; But in all other clay one may immerse when it is wet. One may not immerse oneself with dust [still] on one's feet. One may not immerse a kettle with soot [on it] unless he scraped it.

But they agree that she may eat second tithe. And she may set aside her hallah, bring it near to the dough and call it by its name. And if any of her spit or her pure blood fell on a loaf of terumah it remains clean. Bet Shammai says: she requires immersion at the end [of her days of purification], Bet Hillel says: she does not require immersion at the end.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket, or on a tray, and then bring it near and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.

A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket, or on a tray, and then bring it near and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.

A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.

Rebbi Tanḥum the scholar prayed: May it please You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You may break and remove the yoke of evil inclinations from our hearts since so You created us to do Your will, and we are required to do Your will. You desire it and we desire it, who obstructs? The sour matter in the dough! It is obvious and known that we have no power to resist. But may it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You may remove it from us, subdue it, so that we may do Your will as our own with a willing heart.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said: There are three things of which too little or too much is bad and average is good: sour dough, salt, and refusal. The first time he refuses, the second time he hesitates, the third time he runs and comes. Rebbi Ḥuna was sitting in a synagogue. The organizer came and importuned one to go up and he did not accept it. At the end, that one came to Rebbi Eleazar and said to him: My master should not be angry with me; I did not go up because I was not fully awake. He said to him: I am not mad at you but at the one who importuned.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water and is of the Five Kinds, over it one says “Creator of kinds of foods”, and one recites after it one benediction imitating three. And everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water, but is not of the Five Kinds, Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Zeïra sent to those of the Yeshivah of Rebbi Yannai and they told him, but I do not know what they told him. What is it? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable to assume “That everything was created by His word.” Rebbi Jeremiah inquired: He who ate cereal, what does he recite at the end? Rebbi Yose said, and therefore Rebbi Jeremiah never ate any cereal. That is the only one thing about which he was in doubt.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water and is of the Five Kinds, over it one says “Creator of kinds of foods”, and one recites after it one benediction imitating three. And everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water, but is not of the Five Kinds, Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Zeïra sent to those of the Yeshivah of Rebbi Yannai and they told him, but I do not know what they told him. What is it? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable to assume “That everything was created by His word.” Rebbi Jeremiah inquired: He who ate cereal, what does he recite at the end? Rebbi Yose said, and therefore Rebbi Jeremiah never ate any cereal. That is the only one thing about which he was in doubt.

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah, from the fourth year, but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe, one for those which are not fully ripe. Rebbi Yose said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr, is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

“Cohanim who prepare dough in purity should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year.” Some Tannaïm stated: “They should be inquisitive.” Rebbi Phineas said, he who says that they should be inquisitive, because of their ḥallah; he who says that they should not be inquisitive, for he would save him from the simple sin and lead him to a deadly one. Ṭevel is a deadly sin, the Sabbatical year is a simple prohibition.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated: “One should not sell him a ploughing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated: “One should not sell him a ploughing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity.

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

MISHNAH: If somebody had Sabbatical produce when the time of removal came, he distributes food for three meals to everybody. The poor may eat after removal but not rich persons, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, both poor and rich persons may eat after removal. If somebody had Sabbatical produce which fell to him as inheritance or was given to him as a gift, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be given to those who eat it. But the Sages say, a sinner should not be rewarded, but it should be sold to those who eat it and the payment distributed to anybody. He who eats from Sabbatical dough of which ḥallah was not taken commits a deadly sin.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,.

Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab. And here he says so! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded.

Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab. And here he says so! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded.

Rebbi Abbahu said, all our days we were groping about this as with a blind man’s stick until we learned it from mathematical computation. How much is in a qab? 24 eggs. How much is in a seah? 96 eggs. One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.

Rebbi Abbahu said, all our days we were groping about this as with a blind man’s stick until we learned it from mathematical computation. How much is in a qab? 24 eggs. How much is in a seah? 96 eggs. One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

It was stated: “With water that was left uncovered one should not scrub his house; one should not pour it into the public domain, or give it to drink to a Gentile, neither should one use it to water another person’s animals but one may use it to water his own animals. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead clay, or wash clothes, or soak pots, glasses, and food baskets, and certainly not wash his face, hands, and feet. Others say, they forbade only the place of a scratch. His face is always like a scratch. The tips of his fingers and toes are always like a scratch. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead dough. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, baking is permitted because snake poison is destroyed by fire.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That is, if it does not collapse, but if it collapsed it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.

MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.

“If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose permits it. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Just as Rebbi Yose says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.

“If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose permits it. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Just as Rebbi Yose says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

He who pickles, only if he pickles completely? He who cooks, only if he cooks thoroughly? Let us hear from the following: If one singes ears of grain in the fire they become ṭevel. Without that, would they not need to be worked over by fire? There is a difference here, because that is the end of their processing. Where has this been said? If one plucks out kernels from ears destined for dough, if it is to eat them rolled they are ṭevel, but to make a dough they are not ṭevel.

He who pickles, only if he pickles completely? He who cooks, only if he cooks thoroughly? Let us hear from the following: If one singes ears of grain in the fire they become ṭevel. Without that, would they not need to be worked over by fire? There is a difference here, because that is the end of their processing. Where has this been said? If one plucks out kernels from ears destined for dough, if it is to eat them rolled they are ṭevel, but to make a dough they are not ṭevel.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

MISHNAH: Second Tithe is to be used for eating, drinking, and anointing; to eat everything commonly eaten, to anoint with what commonly is used for anointing. One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil. One does not use Second Tithe oil as base for perfume, one does not buy perfumed oil with Second Tithe money, but one may make spice wine. If one adds it to honey and spices and it increases in value, the increase is proportional. If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional. If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second. This is the principle: In all cases in which the increase is visible, the increase is proportional. In all cases in which the increase is not visible, the increase belongs to the Second.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

To make a dough and return it, to make it and return.

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.

To make a dough and return it, to make a dough and return it.

To make a dough and return it, to make a dough and return it.

The daughters of Sepphoris went up, kept the Sabbath in the Temple, but nobody got up for their fig trees before them. The daughters of Lod were kneading their bread dough, went up, prayed, and descended before it became sour.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr, is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside.

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.” I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,” this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

And just as you say only the five kinds can become maẓẓah and leavened, so only wheat and barley can be dragged with anything. Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, we have only stated: “He who makes dough from wheat and rice;” only wheat can be dragged in.

There, we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites, here if it was mixed. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

It is obvious: For the rabbis, that “less than a third” is not dragged in concerning the matter of tithes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rebbi Eleazar, is it dragged in in the matter of ḥallah like a rice dough? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for ḥallah? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for ḥallah and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses are two for ḥallah and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for ḥallah and tithes.

What are the rules “in between”? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. From where that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (Num. 15:20) “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,” from ḥallah you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to ḥallah? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift ḥallah”.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.