Siman 323

The Tur wrote (Tur Yoreh Deah 323): Any challah that is of rabbinic origin may be given even to a kohen who is an am ha'aretz. And it does not render the mixture tevel, for it is permitted to eat from the bread and separate it afterward. And it is nullified in a majority of chullin in order to eat it in impurity; for example, if there is a High Priest who immersed for his seminal emission, where one separates only one portion and he eats it in purity – this is specifically when it is in its original state, but he may mix it with a majority of chullin to eat it in the days of his impurity. And the Rambam wrote that a zar may mix it equal parts with chullin and eat it. And Ri explained that it is forbidden to nullify it in order to feed it to a zar. Rather, it is not nullified in chullin except in one hundred and one like Torah-mandated terumah, etc. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words: Any challah whose essence is rabbinic, such as challah from outside the Land – is given even to a kohen who is an am ha'aretz. However, the challah of the Land of Israel, even though it is also rabbinic in this time, and even in the days of Ezra it was rabbinic as I wrote at the beginning of the previous siman, nevertheless, since its essence is from the Torah – it is given only to a kohen who is a chaver like all priestly gifts (Beit Yosef and Bach), for we explicitly learned in the fourth chapter of Challah, mishnah 8, regarding the second challah of outside the Land that it is given to any kohen, and not regarding the challah of the Land of Israel. And even though it is possible to say that even outside the Land they only permitted the second challah, and not in places where they separate only one challah outside the Land like places far from the Land of Israel according to the method of the Tosafot and the Rosh that was explained in the previous siman, section 19, nevertheless, it does not imply this. For the primary reason is that since in any case the place is impure – we are not concerned to give specifically to a chaver. If so, what difference is there to me between the second challah and the first? And one also should not ask: Behold, regarding many things we learned there in Challah "and these are given to any kohen," see there? There the intention is not to a kohen who is an am ha'aretz, for this is certainly forbidden, as it is written: "those who hold fast to the Torah of Hashem." Rather, the intention is to any kohen, even if he does not eat chullin in purity but he is a chaver, as the Rash wrote there. And in this they permitted even to an am ha'aretz.

He further says that it does not create a tevel status, for it is permitted to eat from the bread and separate it afterward. For thus our sages, of blessed memory, said in Beitzah (Beitzah 9b): Regarding challah of the Diaspora, one may continue to eat and afterward separate. This means: for challah of Eretz Yisrael, which is essentially from the Torah—it is forbidden to eat from it before separation, because we require separation from that which is nearby, like terumah. This means: that which is separated must be adjacent to that for which it was separated, and if he eats from it—behold, that which was eaten is not adjacent to that which was separated. But for challah of the Diaspora, we do not require it to be nearby, and they also did not forbid eating from it before separation. Therefore, he eats from it and leaves over the amount of challah and a little more; for the amount of challah alone is not effective, as we require "the first"—that its remnants are recognizable. And he eats and afterward separates. And they were lenient in this with two leniencies: the first, that we do not require it to be nearby, and the second, that it does not create a tevel status, for it is permitted to eat from it before the separation of challah, as he separates afterward. And he recites the blessing: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to separate challah."

And know that this fact, that we do not require it to be surrounded, applies only to a dough that was kneaded together. But two doughs that were each kneaded individually, and each contains the required measure, and he desires to separate from this one for that one—it is not effective without surrounding them near one another. Therefore, if he wishes to eat from one dough before separation—he is compelled to separate afterwards from that same dough itself. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book: The Semag wrote etc. that this which we say, "he may continue eating and afterwards separate"—this is when the entire dough became obligated together when it was kneaded together. But regarding matzot on Pesach, where each one became obligated in challah on its own (when there is a measure of challah in the dough or they were joined in a basket), it is logical that it would not be effective without surrounding to exempt them all. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Mordechai in the third chapter of Pesachim, and so wrote our teacher, the Rema.

That which the Tur wrote, "and it is nullified in a majority of chullin in order to eat it in impurity, such as when there is a Kohen Gadol who immersed for his nocturnal emission, etc.," this is its explanation: for we say in Bekhorot (Bekhorot 27a): Shmuel said: Terumah from outside the Land is nullified in a majority. Rabbah would nullify it in a majority and eat it during the days of his impurity. And the Tur holds that this is only for a Kohen, for Rabbah was a Kohen. And it has already been explained in the previous siman that challah from outside the Land is only forbidden to one whose impurity emerges from his body, but one who is impure with the impurity of contact is permitted in it. Therefore, even though outside the Land is impure, nevertheless, if he is pure from impurity of the body, such as a ba'al keri or a zav who immersed, he is permitted to eat it. And this is why Rabbah would nullify it in a majority of chullin, in order to eat even in a state of impurity of the body.

But for a zar to be able to eat it—a majority is not effective. Its law is like that of absolute terumah, for in its own kind it requires one hundred and one for nullification, and not in its own kind up to sixty like all other prohibitions. And in its own kind it has a stringency greater than other prohibitions: for in their own kind they are nullified by a majority as I wrote in siman 98, but terumah requires one hundred and one. And its reason appears to me: for it is well and good regarding a kohen to whom it belongs, and they were very lenient regarding his impurity even without a mixture, in that they did not prohibit it to all those impure with impurity of contact—in this it is quite appropriate to say that by means of a mixture and nullification by a majority they permitted it even regarding impurity that issues from his body. And they even permitted mixing it ab initio, since in any event they were lenient regarding his impurity. But regarding a zar who has no connection to this, why should we be lenient for him? Therefore, the Shas juxtaposed this statement of Rava to that of Shmuel, to indicate that Shmuel only stated it regarding kohanim in the days of impurity. And this is the approach of the Tosafot and the Rosh, see there in Tosafot and in the Rosh, Hilkhot Challah, siman 14.

But Rashi, of blessed memory, explained: It is nullified by a majority to be eaten by a zar and by a kohen during the days of his impurity. And so wrote the Rambam in the fifth chapter, law 11, and he was even more lenient: that even in a case of half and half it is nullified. This is his wording: It is permitted to eat it with a zar at one table, because it does not create meduma. And even if it was mixed equal to equal. Thus far his words. For so it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi, the fourth chapter of Challa, regarding the Mishna of the three divisions for challa, where it is taught: "And it is eaten with the zar at the table." And it said regarding this in the Yerushalmi: even one in one, see there. And even though in the Gemara it requires a majority—this is to nullify it ab initio. But if it was mixed, even equal to equal. And nevertheless, I wonder: for behold, in the Yerushalmi there, Rabbi Abbahu instructed that it requires a majority. And Rabbi Zeira said even one in one. And since Rabbi Abbahu aligns with our Gemara, the Rambam should have ruled like him. And the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol also ruled like the Rambam, and it requires further study. And it is even more a wonder that the Rambam himself in the thirteenth chapter of Terumot, law 11, wrote: Terumah from outside the Land—it is permitted to nullify it by a majority, and he eats it during the days of his impurity. However, according to what we distinguished between mixing ab initio and if it was mixed on its own—it works out well. But who compelled him to this?

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the Rambam and the SeMaG hold that the Yerushalmi does not disagree at all with our Shas. For our Shas deals with terumah and requires a majority, and only for a kohen during the days of his impurity. But the Yerushalmi stands regarding challah, where they required two challot when there is no minor kohen. Therefore, regarding the second challah which is very light, as it is only so that the law of challah should not be forgotten—they were lenient even for a zar, and even if it is equal in measure. Therefore, regarding terumah he ruled according to our Shas, and regarding challah he ruled according to the Yerushalmi, for they do not contradict one another. And even though when there is a minor kohen there is no need for two challot, nevertheless, since the essence of the enactment was for two challot—they were not stringent in this. And so it appears to me to be the primary understanding of the opinion of the Rambam and the SeMaG. (And there is support for our words from the words of the Shach, subsection 10, see there.)

The Rosh wrote there that we need not be concerned for the Yerushalmi, since it disagrees with our Gemara. And I wonder: why was this necessary? For the Tosafot and the Rosh hold that the Mishnah in Challah is not dealing at all with the diaspora far from the Land of Israel, but rather with places adjacent to the Land of Israel, as I wrote in the previous siman. If so, there is no difficulty at all from the Yerushalmi, for the Yerushalmi stands upon the Mishnah of two challot, and they rightly acted leniently regarding the second challah since it is only so that the law of challah should not be forgotten. This is not the case with our Gemara which deals with Babylonia, where according to their approach there was never more than one challah for the kohen, and they rightly acted stringently regarding it. And it requires further study. And in truth, I found in the Rosh at the end of his words that he wrote so, and his previous words are from the Ri, see there. However, the Rosh equated them, and it requires further study.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 323) wrote: Challah from outside the Land, which is permitted to a kohen who is pure from a seminal emission—he is permitted to eat it with a non-kohen at one table, etc., and even side by side. And it is permitted to nullify it in a majority. And he may eat it during the days of his impurity. And they may give it to a kohen who is an am ha-aretz; and it does not involve the prohibition of a kohen assisting in the granary for his gifts, which is forbidden, etc. Thus far his words. And this is the system of the Rambam, and according to how he distinguishes in his great book between that which was mixed on its own and one who mixes intentionally, and not according to what we explained in the opinion of the Rambam to distinguish between terumah and challah. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who disagree, and they hold that it forbids its mixture up to one hundred and one if it is of its own kind, and if it is not of its own kind, up to sixty. Thus far his words. And this is the system of the Tur.

And one of the great later authorities disagrees with the Tur and the Rema, for they did not accurately intend the opinion of the Rosh. For behold, at the end of his words he agreed with the Rambam, who wrote that the Yerushalmi is dealing with the second challah. Therefore, they were lenient regarding it to nullify it by a majority or in equal parts even for a zar, as I wrote in section 9 (Ma'adanei Yom Tov on the Rosh there, letter 63). And there is one who questioned this, that on the contrary, from this there is a proof for the Tur and the Rema, that specifically regarding the second challah they were lenient, and not in the diaspora where there is only one challah (Shach, subsection 3). And this is not a valid question, for the Rosh wrote explicitly there: It stands to reason that one should not be more stringent regarding the challah of the diaspora than regarding the second challah that those adjacent to Eretz Yisrael separate. Thus far his words. And if so, even regarding the challah of the diaspora it is permitted (Mishkenot Yaakov, siman 69). And there is a proof for this: for if not so, from where do we know that the challah of the diaspora is eaten with a zar at the table, for behold, we only learned this regarding the second challah? Rather, it is certain that the law of the challah of the diaspora is like the law of the second challah (and the Shach himself was sensitive to this, and left it in need of further study, see there). And according to this, for the halacha, one should be lenient even for a zar with nullification by a majority. And especially since the Rashba also permitted it post facto by a majority in his Piskei Challah, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book, see there. However, all this is regarding its own kind, but regarding a different kind there is no proof at all, and sixty is required. And I am surprised at one of the greats who wishes to permit it even in a cooked dish (Mishkenot Yaakov ibid.). And we have not heard such a thing even from the system of the Rambam. And perhaps his intention was regarding its own kind.

And some forbid ab initio to nullify by a majority for a zar. But they permit it post facto, and likewise when it was mixed with a small amount – it is permitted to add to it until it is a majority. And such is the law according to the one who holds that one hundred and one are required. This is the opinion of the Ramban and the Ran, of blessed memory (see Beit Yosef). And the Tur wrote that the kohen must be careful not to eat the challah in a bowl with boiling broth, so that he does not forbid the zar from eating from that bowl. Therefore, when challah fell into a cooked dish, and there is not sixty in the dish to nullify it – the dish and the pot are forbidden. However, even for an earthenware vessel, hagalah three times is effective for a rabbinic prohibition that has no scriptural root, as the Tur wrote in siman 121 (Tur Yoreh Deah 121) and in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of siman 113 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 113) regarding the cooking of idolaters. (Shach, subsection 4. And see Taz at the end of this siman, who brought the words of the Bach regarding where it fell into a boiling dish that it is forbidden. And he wrote concerning it: I do not know why we should not rely on the leniency to nullify by a majority? His intention is regarding its own kind, see there. For if there is only its own kind, such as a dish that contains flour even though there is water and meat, if there is only a majority of its own kind – we say "remove that which is not its kind as if it were not there," and its own kind increases over it and nullifies it. And as the Shach wrote in subsection 5, see there regarding "remove its own kind" etc., and the same law applies to the opposite; even though there is room to distinguish, as I wrote in siman 98, nevertheless, regarding a light prohibition such as challah from outside the Land, it is not logical to distinguish. And it is simple that even when they removed the challah from the dish – it is forbidden, for the discharge forbids.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if it returned and became mixed into the dough, and there is not one hundred and one to nullify it, if he has not eaten the dough, he should ask a sage about it, and he will permit it for him like a vow, for one may ask for release from sanctified items, and he shall return and take other challah. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that there is no difference whether it returned and became mixed into its own dough or into another dough; in all of them, it forbids until one hundred and one. And in this manner we learned at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Demai: Terumat ma'aser of demai that returned to its place. And there is a dispute in the Yerushalmi there whether there is a difference between "to its place" and "not to its place"; nevertheless, for the halacha we hold there as well that there is no difference, as the Rambam wrote in the twelfth chapter of Ma'aser, see there. And there is one who wishes to say that "to its place" it returns to its state of tevel. And he wrote that one may rely on the one who said in the Yerushalmi that "to its place" it returns to its state of tevel, and he separates from it itself. And it is not so: first, because we hold even there that there is no difference. Furthermore: because it was never mentioned in the Yerushalmi that it returns to its state of tevel. And in the Yerushalmi the language is that it permits the remainder for eating, and the commentator there explained that the intention is that it returns to its state of tevel. But in truth, the explanation is that "in its place," since it permitted it for eating—its power is strong enough to forbid it. And so the Gra explained in Shenot Eliyahu there, and so the Pnei Moshe explained. Therefore, one should not rely on this at all except through asking for release according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, or to rely that in a majority it is nullified in its own kind, as has been explained. And it is obvious that even if the challah fell into something not of its kind, asking for release is also effective.

And there is one who disagrees with the essence of this law, that an inquiry does not help at all if the inquiry is because of the mixture, so that it should not be forbidden. For specifically if the reason for the inquiry is from the very separation of the challah, that it was against his will—in this an inquiry helps, just as with a vow when there is an inquiry or regret regarding the essence of the vow. But if the inquiry and the regret are because of the reason of the mixture—an inquiry does not help at all (Taz, subsection 2). And the proof for the matter: for if not so, you would not find karet for slaughtered consecrated animals outside the Temple, for certainly he would inquire regarding the consecration in order to escape the prohibition of karet. Rather, it is certain that in order to be saved from a prohibition, an inquiry does not help. But many and great ones rejected this, and upheld the words of our teacher, the Rema, that an inquiry helps. And in truth, regarding slaughtered consecrated animals outside the Temple, if he inquires—he would be exempt from karet (Nekudot HaKesef and Chavot Yair and Beit Yaakov). Rather, she must regret the challah from its outset, because of the reason of the mixture. And it is simple that only the master of the house or the mistress of the house has the ability to inquire, and not another.

If there fell into a pot some of a dough from which challah had not yet been separated—there is no concern in this, for behold, one may continue eating and afterwards separate. Therefore, he should take challah from the remainder of the dough that did not fall into the pot. And even if the entire dough fell into the pot—he should take the dough out of the pot and separate from it a small amount for challah in a manner that it will be nullified; or by the entire dough being nullified by one hundred and one or by sixty in what is in the pot; or according to the view of the poskim that it is nullified by a majority. And if in its own kind there is the measure for nullification, but in a different kind there is not the measure for nullification, we say: remove the different kind as if it were not there, and its own kind increases over it and nullifies it. And so too conversely, we say: remove its own kind as if it were not there, and the different kind increases over it and nullifies it (see Shach, subsection 5).

And specifically when they did not eat the dough entirely. But if they ate it – asking for annulment is not effective. For even though we hold that one may ask for annulment of oaths even if the thing sworn upon has already been eaten, as we say in Shevuot (28), nevertheless here there would be no benefit, for if he asks for annulment the dough will remain tevel, and to separate now is impossible since no remnants remain. If so, what difference is there to me between the prohibition of tevel and the prohibition of challah? (See Shach, subsection 6, who wrote that challah is more lenient. And this is not necessary, for even without this there is no benefit in the annulment. And know that even though in Nedarim (58) we say that a matter that is subject to annulment is considered a matter that has permitters and nullification is not effective, nevertheless regarding challah of the diaspora we do not judge it as a matter that has permitters, since one only asks for annulment under duress, as the Shach wrote in subsection 7. Examine and you will find it simple.)

All the leniencies that have been explained—this is regarding challah of outside the Land. However, regarding challah of the Land of Israel, it is forbidden to eat until one separates it. And it is only taken from that which is in proximity, like terumah, and it is not taken from the pure for the impure ab initio. And anything that regarding terumah one should not separate, and if he separated it is not terumah—so it is regarding challah. And anything that regarding terumah one should not separate from this for that—so it is regarding challah. And anyone who does not eat terumah—does not eat challah, and anyone who eats terumah—eats challah.