Siman 322

It is a positive commandment to separate a portion from the dough for the kohen, as it is said (Numbers 15:20): "The first of your dough you shall lift up as a gift." And this "first" has no fixed measure from the Torah: even if one separated the size of a barley grain—he has exempted the dough. One may separate much, but not the entire dough. One who makes his entire dough challah—has done nothing until he leaves over a portion of it, for since it is written "first"—we require that its remnants be recognizable. Therefore, if he said "all my dough is challah"—it remains tevel as it was, and he takes afterward as much as he desires. This is from the Torah, but by the words of the Scribes there is a fixed measure, as will be explained.

And so the sages taught in the Mishnah at the end of the second chapter of Challah (Mishnah Challah 2:7): The measure of challah is one twenty-fourth. One who makes dough for himself, or one who makes for his son's wedding feast—one twenty-fourth. A baker who makes to sell in the market, and similarly a woman who makes to sell in the market—one forty-eighth. See there. That is to say: lest you say that because a homeowner's dough is small, therefore it is one twenty-fourth, and a baker's dough is large, therefore it is one forty-eighth. For it is not so, as even a homeowner who bakes for his son's wedding feast, where his dough is large, nevertheless the measure is one twenty-fourth. And for a baker, even with a small dough like a woman who sells—it is one forty-eighth. And the Rishonim wrote that the sages estimated thus: that in these measures there is enough for a gift. And if it is a tradition—we shall accept it.

And in my humble opinion, it is a precise measure. For behold, regarding challah it is written (Numbers 15:21): "Of the first of your dough you shall give etc." And we hold that there is no "giving" less than the value of a perutah. And the measure of challah is a kav and a half, as taught at the beginning of Eduyot (Mishnah Eduyot 1), and according to the later measures they are five quarters, and it will be explained in siman 324. And the price of flour we find in the Gemara in several places as "four se'ah for a sela," and the sela is four dinars, resulting in each se'ah costing a dinar. And a se'ah is six kabin and a dinar is six ma'ah, resulting in each kav costing a ma'ah. And a kav and a half are a ma'ah and a half, and the ma'ah is thirty-two perutot as is found in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 12a), and half a ma'ah is sixteen perutot, and together they are forty-eight perutot. And since challah is forbidden to non-kohanim like terumah, and it is cheaper than chullin by up to half as is found in Ketubot (Ketubot 58a), that if he gives her terumah he gives her double in chullin, it results that in challah a "value of a perutah" is one twenty-fourth. And regarding a baker we say in Eruvin (Eruvin 82b): subtract from them half for the shopkeeper when he bakes with his own wood, see there. And it results according to this precisely that for a householder one twenty-fourth is the value of a perutah, and for a baker one forty-eighth. And this measure is like that of the Torah. (And with this the words of Rashi in Menachot (Menachot 77b) settle well, where he says let us learn from the terumah of challah, and Rashi explained that it is one forty-eighth. And it is difficult: is this not only rabbinic? But according to what I wrote it settles well. However, the Rambam in the fifth chapter of Bikkurim wrote that it is because a baker's dough is large and a householder's is small, and they did not distinguish in this, see there. And so it is in the Yerushalmi on this Mishnah, see there. And nevertheless, one may also state this reason. And a support for his words is from the Sifrei, Parshat Shelach, siman 110: "'You shall give to Hashem a terumah'—why is this said etc.? From here you say etc." see there. And examine and you will find it easy. And the Yerushalmi's explanation is thus: that nevertheless, why did the sages not enact that they should all be equal as in terumah? And it answers.)

A homeowner whose dough became impure unintentionally or due to circumstances beyond his control—he separates one forty-eighth, since it is not fit for eating. But if he made it impure intentionally—one twenty-fourth, so that a sinner should not profit. And impure challah is permitted for kindling like impure terumah (the Rambam ibid.). And the kohen kindles it and not the Yisrael. And in the time of the Mikdash, and also for a long time afterward when they were guarding purities (Niddah 6b), the mitzvah was that a person should not make his dough in impurity ab initio. Rather, he should be careful and strive and purify himself and his vessels, in order to separate pure challah. And the dough-kneader who needed to immerse his impure vessels—he is obligated to exert himself up to four mil to find water for immersion. And if he did not find it within four mil—he may make it in impurity, and separate impure challah. And if the homeowner pays him for his exertion for what he will travel more than four mil—he is obligated to go (Rashi Chullin 122b s.v. legabel, see there). And so too a person who needs to make dough, if there is before him within four mil a dough-kneader who makes dough in purity—he is obligated to exert himself to go to him. And specifically "before him" on the path he needs to travel; but to return behind him—he is not obligated except up to slightly less than a mil (Tosafot ibid. according to the explanation of the Aruch, see there).

If a doubt regarding impurity arose in her dough, such that it is consequently impossible to eat the challah, if the doubt arose before the time for challah arrived—that is, before the rolling—she may finish it in impurity and make it impure with her hands; for it is still chullin, and it is permitted to cause impurity to chullin in the Land of Israel. But if the doubt arose after the rolling, one is obligated to finish it with pure vessels. And even though its challah is forbidden to a kohen, nevertheless it is forbidden to make it impure with one's hand, for chullin that is tevel for challah is like challah, and it is forbidden to cause impurity to challah just as to terumah (Niddah 6b). And what is the law of this challah? It is not eaten and it is not burned; rather, it remains suspended in doubt (ibid.) until it is consumed on its own, by rotting or becoming moldy.

It is a known matter that an am ha'aretz is not proficient in the guarding of taharot. Therefore, an am ha'aretz who kneaded dough and says to a kneader who is a chaver, "Separate challah from my dough," and he did so in a state of taharah—he should not listen to him, for the entire dough has already become tamei in his hand. And the kohen would rely on the kneader who is a chaver and come to eat it. However, if before the making of the dough he said to the kneader: "Knead my dough for me in taharah, and separate challah from it"—they permitted the kneader for the sake of his livelihood, that he may knead it in taharah even though he will leave the challah with him, for he will give it to whichever kohen he desires. And how shall he act? He shall place the challah in a vessel that does not contract tumah, such as a vessel made of dung, and in a vessel that is not the typical way to place dough inside it, and he shall warn the am ha'aretz that he must not touch it, and that if he touches it, the dough will return to its state of tevel as if they had not taken challah from it. And he, after all, is exerting effort to take challah, and therefore he will be careful regarding touching it (Gittin 62a). But regarding dough that the am ha'aretz kneaded, they did not permit it for him even if he separates from another place where there is no concern of tumah, for that which they permitted—they permitted only for the sake of his livelihood, when he takes payment for the entire dough (Tosafot ibid.).

The wife of a chaver may sort wheat with the wife of an am ha'aretz, and may sift flour with her; for as long as water has not come upon the flour, there is no concern of tumah. However, from the moment she places water in the flour, she may not assist her, because she prepares her dough in tumah, and it is forbidden to assist those who commit a transgression. And similarly, regarding a baker who prepares in tumah—one may not knead nor shape with him; rather, one may transport bread with him to the retailer, as one performs no action in this.

The Rambam wrote at the end of the eighth chapter: One who buys from an am ha'aretz baker in Syria, and he said to him, "I have separated challah" – he does not need to separate out of doubt; just as all of Israel in the Land of Israel were not suspected regarding terumah gedolah, so too they were not suspected in Syria regarding challah. But one who buys in chutz la'aretz from a baker – he must separate challah out of doubt. However, one who buys from a householder, and it goes without saying one who stays as a guest with him – he does not need to separate challah. Thus far his words. And it is from the Yerushalmi, the fourth chapter of Challah, see there. And even one who stays as a guest with a baker regarding his dough that he eats himself – he does not need to separate. And there is room to doubt if the baker said to him that he separated challah: if he is believed like in Syria, or since he said that only in Syria his statement is effective – it implies that in chutz la'aretz it is not effective. Or perhaps it comes to teach us that even in Syria he must specifically say it. And in truth, in the Yerushalmi there it is explained plainly that in Syria they were not suspected regarding challah, and his statement is not needed at all. And it requires further study: from where did the Rambam derive that he must say "I have separated challah"? This is the wording of the Yerushalmi there: One who buys from a baker in Syria must separate challat demai. But the sages say: He does not need to. And the halacha is like the sages. And it requires great further study.

The obligation of challah from the Torah is only in Eretz Yisrael specifically, as it is written (Numbers 15:19): "And it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land." And it is much lighter than terumot and ma'asrot, which apply in Eretz Yisrael whether in the presence of the Temple or not in the presence of the Temple, as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of Terumot. However, challah, even in the presence of the Temple, does not apply from the Torah except at a time when the majority of Israel dwells there. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, expounded (Ketubot 25a), for it is written regarding challah "When you come (bevo'akhem) to the land" – this coming is different from all other comings in the Torah, for in all of them it is written "When you shall come (ki tavo'u)" and here it is written "When you come (bevo'akhem)"; to teach that it is specifically upon the coming of all of you, and not upon the coming of some of you. Therefore, even in the days of Ezra they were not obligated in challah from the Torah, because only some of Israel ascended, and all the more so in this time. And by rabbinic enactment they are obligated in challah in every place, even outside the land, and the reason was written by the Rambam in the fifth chapter, law 7, and this is his wording: One separates challah outside the land by the words of the scribes, so that the law of challah will not be forgotten from Israel. Thus far his words. And as for why they were not concerned for this regarding terumot and ma'asrot, it can be said because there, in any event, there is an obligation from the Torah in Eretz Yisrael, and consequently it will not be forgotten. But regarding challah it would be forgotten entirely, since there is no obligation from the Torah even in Eretz Yisrael; and since they needed to enact, they consequently enacted in every place, even outside the land. Furthermore: for terumot and ma'asrot are only for landowners, who are not common outside the land. But regarding challah – everyone bakes bread. (And in Tosafot Bekhorot 27a at the end of the heading starting "Pasak" there is this reasoning, see there.) And even though in the Gemara there they did not state this reasoning except regarding the second challah as will be explained, nevertheless it is obvious that also regarding the primary obligation of challah this reasoning applies. And a further reason will be explained in the next section.

Produce of outside the Land that entered the Land, and one made dough from them—they are liable for challah according to the Torah, at a time when the majority of Israel is upon it. And conversely: produce of the Land of Israel that went out to outside the Land, and one made dough from them—they are exempt according to the Torah; as it is said: "where I bring you there"—there you are liable, whether with produce of the Land of Israel or with produce of outside the Land. For the liability of challah is at the time of kneading, and therefore it depends on the place where the dough is made, and not on the place where the produce grew. And according to this, one may also say the reason they were more concerned for the liability of challah than for terumot and ma'asrot is because it appears like an obligation of the person and not like an obligation of the land, since it does not depend on the place of growth of the produce. And one does not bring challah from outside the Land to the Land of Israel, just as one does not bring terumah and bikkurim from there, because the air of outside the Land is impure. And if he brought it—he leaves it until the eve of Pesach and it is burned like terumah, for it is forbidden to eat it as it is impure. And to burn it immediately would be a disgrace, and therefore he waits until the eve of Pesach, for then they also burn terumah when it is chametz.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (Mishnah Challah 4:8): Rabban Gamliel says: There are three lands regarding challah: From the Land of Israel until Keziv, one challah. From Keziv until the river and until Amanah, two challot: one for the fire and one for the kohen; the one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the kohen has no minimum measure. From the river and until Amanah and inward, two challot: one for the fire and one for the kohen; the one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the kohen has a minimum measure. See there. The explanation of the matters: Because the sages were very concerned that the law of challah should not be forgotten from Israel, they therefore saw fit to strengthen this in every way possible so that the challah would be according to the law of the Torah, which is given to a kohen and he eats it. Therefore, from the Land of Israel until Keziv, which is the place conquered by those who ascended from Babylon, which is the Land of Israel proper – one separates one challah and gives it to the kohen according to the law of the Torah. And regarding this we taught that a homeowner gives one twenty-fourth, and the baker one forty-eighth. And from Keziv until the river and Amanah, which is the place conquered by those who ascended from Egypt but not those who ascended from Babylon, and the first sanctity did not sanctify it for the future, and it is impure like the land of the nations, and it is impossible to eat the challah and it must necessarily be burned; and so that they should not say "we saw challah being burned," and the impurity is not well-known – they therefore obligated separating a second challah for the kohen. And it is eaten because the primary one is the first. And it has a minimum measure. And the second has no minimum measure, but from there and beyond, which is all of chutz la'aretz, since here its essence is rabbinic, and there was never a Torah obligation – they therefore also enacted two challot: for the fire and for the kohen. For the fire is necessary because of the impurity, and for the kohen so that the law of challah should not be forgotten. And since both are rabbinic, it is better to increase that which is eaten, therefore the one for the fire has no minimum measure and the one for the kohen has a minimum measure of one forty-eighth.

And all this was in the time of the sages of the Shas, for there was purity in Eretz Yisrael even from the impurity of the dead, because they had the ashes of the red heifer. But now, even in Eretz Yisrael, everyone is impure with the impurity of the dead, and therefore now even in Eretz Yisrael it is impossible to eat the challah, and one separates one forty-eighth and burns it. Nevertheless, one does not need to separate a second challah for the kohen, as from Keziv and Amanah and beyond, because this enactment never existed there; but in other places the law remains as before. And this is the opinion of the Rambam, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 322 section 4). And according to the opinion of the Rosh, even in Eretz Yisrael one requires two challot, and thus wrote the Tosafot.

And one should not ask: Why regarding challah did they institute two challot, and they did not institute so regarding terumah during the time of the Shas when they would separate terumah in places close to the Land of Israel, such as Syria and Babylonia? However, in truth, the Yerushalmi in the fourth chapter of Challah (Halacha 4) asked this question. And it answered that challah has nothing following it, but terumah has terumat ma'aser and ma'aser following it. If you say to separate a second terumah, the second would be found to be tevel for ma'aser, for in truth it is not terumah; and he would come to a pitfall, as they would think it is terumah and would not separate tithes from it. Therefore, they did not institute two terumot. And the Tosafot in Bechorot (27a, end of the heading beginning "Pasak") wrote another reason: because regarding challah there is more reason to fear that it will be forgotten since it applies to every person, which is not the case for terumah which applies only to landowners, see there. And I am wondered that they did not bring the Yerushalmi and its reason, for it is a clear reason. And it requires further study.

And behold, according to what has been explained, we should have separated two challot: one for the fire and one for the kohen. Yet in our days we have never heard of this. The Rishonim have already addressed this: the Rosh in Hilkhot Challah siman 6, and the Rash in the commentary on the Mishnah chapter 4 mishnah 8, and Tosafot Chullin (104a end of the heading "Challat"), and likewise the Semag in positive commandment 141. This is the wording of the Rosh: And I wondered about most places in Ashkenaz that they do not separate a second challah. And a reason can be given because in the days of the Amoraim they would eat pure terumah in Eretz Yisrael, for they had the ashes of the parah etc. but nowadays when challah is not eaten in Eretz Yisrael – even in chutz la'aretz there is no need to separate the challah of the kohen. And so wrote the Bahag. And challah in Eretz Yisrael, they separate only one and burn it etc. Thus far his words. And the proof from the Bahag is only regarding Eretz Yisrael; however, the Rosh holds that for this reason even in chutz la'aretz there is no need, and not like the Rambam. (And the words of the Ma'adanei Yom Tov there are stammering, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy). And so he wrote in Chullin, chapter "Kol HaBasar," see there.

And like the words of the Rosh, the Smag also wrote. And the Tosafot in Chullin ibid. wrote the reason: because it is necessary to guard it from being fed to non-kohanim—they refrained from separating it, see there. And the Rash wrote according to the reason of the Rosh. And this is what the Tur wrote: And some say: since challah is not eaten in Eretz Yisrael, also in other places one only needs to separate one and burn it. Thus far his words. And in Sefer HaTerumah he wrote the reason like the Tosafot, and this is his wording: because it is necessary to guard it from non-kohanim and from Cutheans. And also sometimes they place it in a bowl in boiling broth, and it is forbidden for a non-kohen to eat from the bowl. Thus far his words. And the Rashba in his Piskei Challah wrote that he heard that there are still places that practice with two challot, but in all the land and in France they only practice with the challah of the fire and without a fixed measure. And he brought the reason of the Rash, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, testified in his great book that such is the widespread custom, not to separate anything other than the challah of the fire alone; see there. In the Shulchan Aruch, he did not mention this. Perhaps his intention was regarding Eretz Yisrael alone, as his location was in Safed. However, our teacher, the Rema, at the end of this siman wrote so, and this is his wording: And some say since challah is not eaten in this time in Eretz Yisrael, also in other places one need only separate one challah and burn it. And such is the widespread custom in all these provinces, that they separate only one challah without a measure and burn it, just as they would do when they separated two challot, for the challah of the fire had no measure. Nevertheless, it is customary to take a kezayit. And one who eats challah even outside of the Land recites a blessing first over the species he wishes to eat, and afterward recites "Who has sanctified us with the sanctity of Aaron and commanded us to eat terumah." And some say when they burn the challah they make a fire for it by itself, for an Israelite is forbidden to benefit from it. And it is customary to cast it into the oven before they bake the bread. Thus far his words. That is to say: that in this case there is no need for a fire by itself, for it is a great burden. Rather, since they cast it before the baking of the bread—behold, he does not benefit from it. And even though through this the heat is slightly greater—there is no substance to this; for what is a kezayit of dough considered to increase warmth against the firewood in the oven? And that which he wrote that the challah of the fire had no measure, this refers to the challah of outside of the Land as has been explained. However, according to this, in Eretz Yisrael and in the places conquered by those who ascended from Egypt—they should have separated according to the measure and burned it, for behold, there the challah of the fire had a measure. Nevertheless, we are not concerned for this, and we follow the majority of the world, and it is not worthwhile to increase things that are burned. And as for why he did not mention the blessing over challah, it is because he explained this in siman 328 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 328). However, it is implied from his words that if now one wishes to separate a second challah to give it to a kohen—it is permitted, since he wrote the blessing "on the eating of challah." But in our days we have not heard of this even from the pious of the generations. And more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven in section 21.

And behold, the Rambam made three divisions regarding challah as I have written. And in the diaspora, one always requires two challot. And seemingly, there is a contradiction to this from that which we say in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 27a): Shmuel said: Terumah of the diaspora is not forbidden except to one whose impurity emerges from his body, such as a zav, a zavah, and a ba'al keri. But one who is impure with the impurity of contact with a corpse, a carcass, or a creeping animal, or the contact of a niddah, a zav, or a zavah—it is permitted to him. And these words apply to eating; but regarding touching, even with impurity that emerges from his body, it is permitted. Ravina said: Therefore, a niddah may separate challah, because she is permitted in touching it. And a minor kohen may eat it, because he does not have impurity from his body, as it is not his way to see zivah or keri. And even though a one-day-old child contracts impurity through zivah, nevertheless, it is not his way. And if there is no minor kohen, she takes it with the tip of the dough and throws it into the oven, and then she separates another challah, so that the law of challah will not be forgotten. And a kohen who is great in years eats it. Behold, it is explicit: when are two challot required in the diaspora? When there is no minor kohen. But when there is one—one alone is sufficient. Why, then, did the Rambam require two challot always in the diaspora?

However, in truth there is no contradiction, for the Rambam wrote the law of the Mishnah regarding the primary enactment that they enacted in every place: two challot. And this is when there is no minor kohen, but when there is a minor kohen, the Rambam himself explained this law afterward (Rambam, Laws of First Fruits and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 5:10), and this is his wording: Challah of outside the Land, even though it is impure, since the essence of its obligation is from the words of the sages, and it is only forbidden for consumption to a kohen whose impurity issues from his body, and they are those who have had a seminal emission, zavim, zavot, niddot, women after childbirth, and metzoraim; but others who are impure through contact with impurities, even one impure from a corpse, are permitted to eat it. Therefore, whether in Syria or outside the Land, if he wished to separate one challah, he separates one forty-eighth. And it is eaten by a minor boy who has not yet seen a seminal emission, or by a minor girl who has not yet seen niddah. And he does not need to separate a second one. And so too, if there was a mature kohen there who immersed from his seminal emission or from his zivah, even though his sun has not set, he is permitted to eat the first challah, and he does not need to separate a second one outside the Land. Thus far his words, and so it is in the Shulchan Aruch, section 5 (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 322:5); only he omitted "and metzoraim," and I do not know why.

But our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, have another approach to this in Chullin at the beginning of the eighth chapter and in Bekhorot there, that even the third classification in the Mishnah is only in the lands outside of Israel adjacent to the Land of Israel, and there a minor kohen is of no avail; and even one who is completely pure—one may not eat it, for their challah appears like the challah of the Land of Israel. And they decreed not to eat it at all, and it is necessary to separate two challot. And that which they said in Bekhorot to give to a minor kohen—this is in Bavel and in places far from the Land of Israel, for one will not come to confuse them with the Land of Israel. And the approach of the Rosh is also thus. And the Tur was very brief in this, and the Shulchan Aruch brought only the words of the Rambam. (And see Taz, subsection 2.)

And know that regarding the second challah in the third classification, the Rambam wrote that it is permitted even to zavim and zavot. The Ra'avad challenged him: for it is explicitly taught in the Mishnah there that it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, and to anyone from whose body impurity issues. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, answered that the Rambam's intention was after immersion, and the difficulty is evident. In my humble opinion, one who examines the Commentary on the Mishnah there will see that the Rambam follows his own reasoning: for in the Mishnah all the classifications are mentioned, and also all of the diaspora requires two challot where there is no minor kohen; but where there is a minor kohen, even in Syria two challot are not required, and certainly so in the diaspora. And the sugya in Bekhorot revolves around this, as we explained in section 18 according to his reasoning, and therefore he holds that that which was taught in the Mishnah there, that it is forbidden to zavim and zavot—this refers to a single challah and is according to the sugya in Bekhorot. The Ra'avad follows the reasoning of the Tosafot, that this [case] of Bekhorot was not mentioned in the Mishnah at all and it is a fourth classification, and perforce that which was taught "and it is forbidden to zavim and zavot" refers to the second challah of the third classification. But the Rambam holds that since this is only so that the law of challah will not be forgotten—we are not concerned with impurity at all. And also regarding what the Rambam wrote concerning challah of the diaspora, that it is permitted to a kohen gadol when he has immersed even if his sun has not set—there are those who disagree, and they hold that it requires the setting of the sun. Our teacher, the Rema, mentioned this, and it is the opinion of the Ran in the third chapter of Pesachim. And in truth, it is an old dispute regarding all rabbinic impurities, whether they require the setting of the sun. And the same law applies to Torah impurity and rabbinic terumah.

We have already written in section 16 that according to our custom based on our teacher, the Rema, to separate one challah and burn it—one should not separate a second challah to give it to a minor kohen, even one who wishes to be stringent in this. And so he wrote in the name of the Maharshal, not to give challah to a minor, for in this time we do not maintain the status of a definite kohen (Shach, subsection 9). And I do not understand this reason to weaken the power of the priesthood in this time, and especially regarding rabbinic challah. And the Maharil wrote the reason: so that they should not say that challah from outside the Land is eaten (ibid.). And this too is puzzling, for the Shas was not concerned for this, and we should be concerned for it? And the Mahariw wrote the reason: perhaps he will crumble it and it will lead to a mishap (ibid.), for it is the way of a child to crumble. And this too is not understood, to be concerned for what the Shas was not concerned for. Furthermore: is it not possible to give it to an adult kohen when he has immersed for his seminal emission? And it appears to me that therefore our teacher, the Rema, wrote the text of the blessing "on the eating of challah" as I wrote there, because it is his opinion that one who wishes to feed it to a minor kohen according to the words of the Shas has the ability to do so, but he did not write this explicitly because from the Maharil and Mahariw it does not imply so. And so it is implied from his words in Orach Chaim siman 457 regarding the baking of matzah on Pesach, where he wrote, and this is his wording: And if there is a minor kohen who has not seen a seminal emission, or an adult who immersed for his seminal emission—they are permitted to bake the challah for him. And some say that we do not feed challah in this time to any kohen. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote his opinion for permission, and afterwards brought the words of the Mahariw. And there are those who wish to distinguish between Pesach and the rest of the days of the year (see Shach at the end of subsection 9, and Magen Avraham there subsection 9). And they wrote a very weak reason, see there. And in my humble opinion, it appears that the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, is to permit it during the entire year, and he alluded to it here and in Orach Chaim. However, he did not write it explicitly because of the reason we wrote, and because such is not the custom of the world. And it is simple that if she separated challah and it was lost, that she does not need to separate another, since it is not given to a kohen (so wrote the Birkei Yosef).