Números 15:20 Pasajes relacionados

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes¹⁵The Mishnah prescribes taking heave of the tithe and ḥallah together, and only then to give a name to Second Tithe and to redeem it. Both tithes should have been given when the grain was first stored at the farm barn. The obligation of ḥallah comes much later, when grain is first made into flour and then the flour into bread dough.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late¹⁶“From your storage and your dema‘ you should not give too late,” Ex. 22:28. From this one concludes that a person who gave heave of the tithe before the first heave cannot declare that he followed all the rules of tithing. No similar rule seems to exist for ḥallah..” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay¹⁷Since heave and tithes should have been given at the threshing floor, any fixing of demay is in itself in the wrong order.? 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 produce¹⁸This refers to Mishnah 1:4 which states that the order of separation for demay is irrelevant, that one may separate the heave of the tithe (which is part of the First Tithe) after the Second Tithe. R. Joḥanan notes that this is one of the special leniencies for demay.? And here¹⁹In Mishnah 5:1. we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁰Tosephta Demay 5:6: “He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together …” There the order of the declaration is heave, heave of the tithe, ḥallah, Second Tithe. Since the first heave is mentioned, one speaks about produce from which nothing at all was yet taken. Nevertheless, ḥallah appears between First and Second tithes.: 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 Tithe²¹Since ḥallah has the status of heave, once the obligation has started it should take the place of heave that must be given before any tithe.? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it²²Just as if one would transgress giving First Tithe before the heave, the heave given later must be not only from the remaining produce but also from the tithe, since anything that comes later needs to be put in order by fulfillment of the prior obligation. Then the requirement that ḥallah should be taken from dough made from grain from which heave and tithes were taken would be put on its head.. And we have stated in this respect²³Tosephta Terumot 4:10. It follows that heave and ḥallah are coordinate, not subordinate one to the other. Hence, each of them needs to be put in order with respect to the other. But definitely this should give ḥallah a status prior to tithes.: “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 Tithe²⁴I. e., the heave of the tithe that must be given from the 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 else²⁵Not quite everything else, but everything else which has to be given for demay, i. e., comes after heave.. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning²⁶Num. 18:12. Ḥallah also is called “beginning” (Num. 15:20,21) but its obligation does not start at the threshing floor..” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

“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..