Talmud su Numeri 18:12

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.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah. (Num. 18:12): “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain⁸⁹This is the description of heave; the description as “best” is the basis of the position of R. Jehudah. In the verse, olive oil is treated separately from cider and grain. Everybody agrees that heave of olive oil must be kept separate from that of cider and grain. The argument, known as בנין אב מכתוב אחד, is that if two different species of trees are treated as distinct then two species belonging to completely different families of plants certainly must be treated as distinct..” Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.