Levítico 5:16 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Demai, Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim & Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state⁵Mishnah 1:3. The opinions of Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar are detailed in Halakhah 1:3.: “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 accordingly⁶Not in other Tannaitic sources. But in Tosephta Demay 1:28 we read: “Replacements for heave and its fifth {from a layman who ate heave in error, who has to replace it together with a 25% fine, measured from below, Lev.5:16}, the fifths of the fifth {if the layman then took the fifth by error, he has to restitute it with an additional fifth, Lev. 5:26}, the leftover of the ‘omer sacrifice, the two breads {leavened breads for the priests, offered on Pentecost}, the show breads, the leftovers of flour sacrifices, and additions to First Fruits; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate but the House of Hillel exempt.” It is difficult to make coherent sense of this Tosephta (cf. תוספתא כפשוטה p. 206–207), but the general tenor is that the House of Shammai treat as demay anything that may be food for human consumption.: “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 demay⁷Mishnah 1:3, accepted also by the House of Shammai.? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice⁸Pure fruit juice, other than grape juice and olive oil, without a drop of water added, is not one of the fluids that make food ready to become ritually impure. Also, dough made with fruit juice is really cake dough, not bread dough, and therefore should not be subject to ḥallah. However, the Mishnah, Ḥallah 2:4, declares that dough made with fruit juice is subject to ḥallah even though it cannot become impure. [Maimonides, in his Code (Bikkurim 6:12), not in his Commentary to the Mishnah, restricts the obligation of ḥallah to dough made with grape juice and olive oil; he follows the Yerushalmi Ḥallah 2:2 which seems to indicate that practice does not follow the Mishnah.] If we follow the Mishnah in Ḥallah, we should require the person who buys such bread from the baker to separate ḥallah in order to make public the obligation to give ḥallah from such “bread.”. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota⁹Mishnah Ṭebul Yom 3:4: “Dough prepared with some fluid {i. e., that came into contact with some of the fluids that prepare food to become impure, cf. Chapter 2, Notes 136–137} and was kneaded with fruit juice {other than grape juice or olive oil} and was touched by a person who went to the ritual bath that day {but will be pure for heave and sacrifices only at sundown (Lev. 22:7)}, R. Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota said in the name of R. Joshua that he made all of it unfit; R. Aqiba said in his {R. Joshua’s} name that he made {heave} unfit {for consumption) only at the place he touched.” Since practice follows R. Aqiba in his dispute with a single opponent, practice must be that fruit juice does not transmit impurity and, hence, does not impart impurity to ḥallah.
R. Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, Tanna of the third generation, was a student of R. Joshua and teacher of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. The name Bartota has been tentatively identified in Upper Galilee.. R. Eleazar was known to give to charity more than he could afford, so that the administrators of charity tried to avoid being seen by him., hence it does not follow the rabbis¹⁰Since our Mishnah is anonymous, it is difficult to accept that it represents an opinion that clearly is not the practice.. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said¹¹In Halakhah 1:3, R. Joḥanan says that, if the baker hires a ḥaver to knead his dough in purity, he will also be careful with heave and tithes, and the baker should tithe. If he prepares his dough in impurity, the buyer should tithe, and this is the case here. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah means a wholesaler, who does not have to tithe, but Mishnah 1:3 deals either with a retail baker or a private person baking for his family and guests., 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 stated¹²Quoted in Halakhah 2:2 together with the following sentences, qq. v.: “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 public¹³Since the Mishnah states explicitly that one buys from the baker who offers baked goods to the public..

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself³⁷The robber has to repay the robbery, not double the value he took as is the rule for the thief. It is assumed that the grandfather died after he forgave the grandson for the robbery and the grandson is the only heir. According to R. Joḥanan, the grandfather could not forgive and the grandson cannot inherit; therefore, the restitution has to be made to a Cohen. According the R. Simeon ben Laqish, the grandfather can forgive and the grandson can pay the principal to himself as heir, then sell the heave to a Cohen and pocket the money.
The statement is also in Pesaḥim 2:3 (29a).. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal³⁸Mishnah 6:4. Stealing and robbing from the Sanctuary have the same status; there is no double restitution. A fifth is required for illicit use of heave (Lev. 22:14) and of property of the Sanctuary (Lev. 5:16). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis..” Should he not pay three³⁹This is only a potentiality, not a certainty. If he denied stealing under oath, another fifth is due (Lev. 5:16). The heave can become property of the Sanctuary only if the Cohen dedicated it. Therefore, if the Cohen may forgive repayment, the thief cannot be forced to swear and there never can be three fifths. But according to R. Joḥanan, the tribe should be able to force the thief to swear in court and the Tanna should have noticed the possibility of a third fifth.? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery⁴⁰Since robbery and sanctity are incompatible, once it is holy it is not subject to the laws of robbery and the third fifth claimed by R. Simeon ben Laqish is not applicable.. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning⁴¹The red cow whose ashes cleanse from the impurity of the dead (Num. 19) must be slaughtered on the stake; its carcass cannot be moved.. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning⁴²The entire statement is R. Hoshaia’s in Babli Zebaḥim 113, in opposition to R. Joḥanan who requires the carcass to be moved in case it was slaughtered at a place from which the Temple doors are not visible; cf. also Sifry Ḥuqqat 124..

“ ‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave⁷⁰Mishnah Ma‘serot 1:6 states that tithes and heave are due after threshing, when the grain kernels have been assembled into a heap and the heap was smoothed. It is shown in Ma‘serot, Halakhah 1:1, that property which was ownerless at the moment when heave was due is exempt from heave. This seems to contradict the statement here that if a person declared his grain ownerless before it was smoothed, then gave heave, and only after that again took possession, his heave might be heave. The entire argument is possible only for R. Meïr, since R. Yose holds that property can be abandoned only if another person takes it up (cf. Peah 6:1, Note 17). It follows that any heave given in this case is given only because by rabbinic decree this kind of pro forma abandoning was declared invalid; hence, there is a rabbinic obligation of heave. As the Babli notes (Nedarim 44b), any heave given from the repossessed grain must refer to the heap itself; it cannot possibly be given for unabandoned grain which is obligated by biblical decree (if we assume that heave is a biblical obligation after the Babylonian exile, cf. Ševi‘it Chapter 7, Notes 11 ff.).. Let us hear from the following⁷¹Mishnah Terumah 6:4. Stealing sacred property obligates the thief to pay back the amount taken plus a fine of one fifth (Lev. 5:16). The fifth is computed from above (amount stolen = 4/5 amount paid), which is one fourth from below (amount paid = 5/4 amount stolen). Halakhah 6:4 explains that one fifth has to be given to the Temple, restitution of Temple property, and another fifth to a Cohen, as restitution of heave.: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property⁷²Double restitution is required only for theft from natural persons: (Ex. 22:8) “He shall pay double to his neighbor.”.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his⁷³If this argument were valid, no corporation would ever be able to be engaged in agriculture in the Holy Land since it never could tithe.? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his ṭevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rebbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner⁷⁴Any duly authorized person can give heave for any corporation. The question asked at the start is not answered since we did not find a case in which it would make any difference.. This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person⁷⁵This opinion is not supported by any other source in Talmudic literature..