Siman 324

One is only obligated in challah for the five species of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye, as it is written (Numbers 15:19): "And it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land." And we learn in the Sifrei and in the Yerushalmi (Yerushalmi Challah 1:3): "bread"-"bread" from matzah, for one only fulfills the obligation of matzah with one of these five species; for regarding matzah we require a substance that comes to fermentation, and other species such as rice and millet do not come to fermentation but rather to decay. And if one mixed that which is obligated in challah with that which is exempt, it will be explained before us in section 23.

And how much must be in the dough to be obligated in challah? Thus we learned in Eduyot (Mishnah Eduyot 1:2), that a kav and a half is obligated in challah. And when the measures were increased, they became five quarters. This is the common phrasing in the Shas and poskim: that five quarters of flour is obligated in challah. This is the measure of the omer which is a tenth of an ephah, as it is written: "the first of your doughs" that you eat in the desert "an omer per head," and according to this measure you are obligated in challah. It is the measure of forty-three eggs and a fifth of an egg, like the numerical value of "challah" which is forty-three, and the letter hei hints at the fifth. (For the letter hei in the count of forty-three is only possible in challah. Therefore, when you remember the number of "challah," you will automatically remember the hei, for it is impossible without the hei. This is the intention of the Shach in subsection 2.)

And how shall he measure this? For if he fills a vessel with forty-three eggs, behold there is space between them. Therefore, he should fill a vessel with water and pour the water from it into another vessel, and afterward place forty-three and a fifth eggs into the first one, and pour the water from the second vessel into the first. The water that remained in the second, he should place into another vessel, and the vessel that holds them is the measure to fill with flour. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:1) that the weight of five quarters of flour is five hundred and twenty dirhams of wheat flour from Egypt, see there. But the Rambam already wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah, the second chapter of Challah (Mishnah 6), that one should not measure the shiur of challah by weight. This is his wording: But if we come to measure by weight it will vary, etc., because the heaviness of wheat and barley is not equal, nor is the weight of all types of flour equal, etc. Thus far his words. And I have written this because I heard that there are those who measure by weight three pounds of flour as the shiur of challah, and it is an error for the reason the Rambam wrote. Rather, the shiur is by measure, three quarts less a little (Shach, subsection 3). And there is one who wrote three quarts and a quartirel, which is a quarter of a quart (Magen Avraham, siman 456, subsection 2). And we consistently instruct that exactly three quarts is the shiur of challah. And even though it is a little less, who can measure the "little"? Therefore, one must be careful to either knead much less than three quarts and then it is exempt, or to knead three full ones. And this is regarding the measures of vessels. And there are shiurim in the measurement of fingers, as will be explained.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: A vessel that holds ten fingers by ten fingers (square), with a height of three fingers and a ninth of a finger approximately – this is the measure for challah. And likewise, a measure that is seven fingers less two-ninths of a finger by seven less two-ninths, with a height of seven fingers less two-ninths of a finger – this is the omer. And all these fingers are the width of the thumb of the hand. Thus far his words. And this is from the words of the Rambam, chapter six of Bikkurim, see there.

And know that one of the great authorities shook the world regarding the two measures that were explained: for he measured the measure of challah in a vessel according to the measure of the fingers, and he measured according to the measure of the eggs that were explained, and it was half of the measure of the fingers. For this, it is necessary to say one of two things: either our fingers are double in their width compared to their fingers, and this is impossible since the generations are continuously diminishing; rather, certainly our eggs have shrunk by half from the eggs that were in the days of the sages of the Shas. And according to this, all the measures of the Torah, such as a kezayit of matzah on Pesach and maror, and the measure of a revit for kiddush and for havdalah and for the four cups, which according to the measures are an egg and a half, and a "kezayit" is half an egg – it is now necessary to double them: a kezayit like a kebeitzah and a revit like three eggs (Tzelach, chapter Arvei Pesachim). And we have heard that two other giants of the generation upheld this opinion (the Gra and the Grashz). And even today, those who are meticulous are stringent to double all the measures, and according to this, also regarding the measure of challah we require double the measure of eggs. However, regarding three quarts, everyone is accustomed to take challah with a berakhah, and it requires a reason.

However, that which he wrote that the eggs have shrunk—there is no need for this, for it is true that in every single place there are large eggs and small eggs. And regarding this we learned in Kelim (Mishnah Kelim 17:6): The "egg-bulk" they spoke of is neither large nor small but medium, etc., and everything is according to the perception of the viewer that it is medium. See there. But in truth, from country to country they are not completely equal in eggs, for there are countries where their chickens lay large eggs, and there are countries that lay small ones. As we have known by sense, that about thirty years ago chickens were brought to our countries from afar and they call them "Preussisa" or "Galansky," and their eggs are almost double our eggs. And now, over the course of time, they were crossbred with the chickens of our country and they shrunk slightly. And so wrote the Tashbetz in a responsum (Part 3, Siman 33), and this is his wording: For the fingers are equal in all places, etc., and it is more precise than the measurement of eggs which are not equal in every place, etc. And the matter is visible to the eye, for when you measure the mikveh with our cubits, and align it with the measurement of eggs in these places, you will find that the eggs are much smaller than the measurement. And when there are two unequal measurements before us—it is proper to be stringent in a Torah matter. Thus far his words. And also in his book "Yavin Shemuah" he wrote so, and this is his wording: And I wonder at those who measure with our eggs: because not all places are equal in eggs, for there are places where they are large like in the lands of Edom, and there are places where they are thin like in the lands of Ishmael. Thus far his words. Behold, the Tashbetz already remarked upon this.

Indeed, if we say that now a kezayit is like our kebeitzah, and in the Shas they said that a person's throat cannot hold more than a hen's egg, then according to this we must say that according to our eggs the throat holds two of our eggs, and this matter is contradicted by the senses. And perhaps you will say that in the time of the Shas people were larger than ours? This is not so, as we clarified in siman 201 regarding the matter of a mikveh, where our sages, of blessed memory, measured with a height of three amot according to a man's stature, and according to the opinions of most poskim this is including the head. And three amot are eighteen tefachim, which are thirty-six vershoks. And today as well the government measures thus when taking for the army: the height of an average man is two arshins with four vershoks, which are also thirty-six vershoks, given that the four amot in the Gemara are three of our arshins. It follows that the stature is equal to the time of the Shas.

However, from another side, one of the great authorities raised a difficulty: How did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim siman 456 calculate for the shiur of challah that which forty-three and a fifth eggs displace of water, as has been explained? For we say at the beginning of the eighth chapter of Shabbat: a revi'it of blood, when it congeals, will stand at a kezayit; and a revi'it is considered in the calculation of water as an egg and a half—behold, from an egg and a half of liquid substance, only a third remains in a dry state. If so, the water that forty-three eggs displace, when it congeals, only a third will remain; and how can we calculate from water to flour? (Chatam Sofer Orach Chaim siman 127). And were the matter a tradition from the sages of the Shas, we would say that thus they received from Sinai: that at the time the water is liquid according to its quantity—then such is the quantity of the flour. But for the poskim themselves to calculate from a liquid substance to a dry substance is astonishing: from where do we have this to say so? And the source of the law is from the Rokeach. Therefore, he wrote that it is a printing error in the Rokeach, and it must say: "eighty-six eggs." And because flour is not a solid mass like eggs, nor a liquid like water, therefore the shiur is like two times forty-three, even though with eggs one requires three times, see there. And all these are forced matters. And how is it possible to calculate this on one's own without a tradition from the sages of the Shas?

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the Rishonim took this measure from the sages of the Shas. For in the Tosefta at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Nazir (Tosefta Nazir 4:1) it is taught: And what is its measure? Like a kezayit etc. wine and vinegar are the same as them. How does he do it? He brings a cup full of wine, and brings an egori-olive like a kezayit, and places it inside and it overflows. If he drank the equivalent of them – he is liable etc. Thus far its wording. And the Tosafot at the beginning of Eruvin and Sukkah cite it – behold, they measured from dry to liquid, and automatically the same law applies from liquid to dry. And one cannot say that regarding a nazir the Torah decreed so and not regarding anything else (Chatam Sofer ibid.), for where have we found that the Torah decreed so regarding a nazir? And if it is from the verse "vines and figs and pomegranates," from which we expound "vines" to be for the measure of a revi'it of wine for a nazir – this is not according to the one who holds it is like a kezayit. Rather, it is certainly a tradition in their hands: to measure from the quantity of liquid to the quantity of dry, and from the quantity of dry to the quantity of liquid.

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the words of our teachers stand. And if it is because the measurements do not align—this is because the eggs do not align, as the Tashbetz wrote. But with our large eggs—it is simple that with them we can measure in their half all Torah measurements of a kaza'it. And so too regarding the measurement of challah, if we clarify forty-three large eggs—certainly the measurement will align. However, even without this, it is a difficult thing to measure with forty-three eggs, for this requires a large vessel, and who can measure the filling of the vessel? And if the filling is lacking any small amount, there will be a great deficiency in a large vessel, as is understood. And it is better to measure by the measurement of a thumb. In any case, on three quarts of flour one certainly should recite the blessing; and such is the simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel, and one should not doubt this at all.

These five species of grain combine with one another, such that if there are only five quarters in the dough from all five of them—they combine. In what case does this apply? When he mixed them as flour and kneaded them as one, or even if he kneaded each one individually, but afterwards kneaded them all together until they became one dough (Taz, subsection 2). But if he kneaded each species alone, and there is no required amount except through the combination of all of them, and he attaches dough to dough at their edges with any attachment whatsoever, or places them in one basket according to what will be explained in siman 325—those that are of one species combine with one another. However, from two species they do not combine, neither through biting nor through the combination of a basket, but only through kneading together.

And what is "kind with its kind"? Wheat only joins with spelt, because spelt is of the kind of wheat and also of the kind of barley. Therefore, spelt joins with each and every one. Barley joins with everything except for wheat. Rye joins with barley and spelt, and not with oats and wheat. Oats join with barley and spelt, and not with wheat and rye. And the Rambam ruled that spelt, oats, and rye join with one another. (For Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds this way in the Mishnah, fourth chapter, Mishnah 2 (Mishnah Challah 4:2), and the Rambam holds that he does not disagree with the first Tanna. And so it is implied in the Gemara that oats and rye are a kind of barley and they are equal. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And there is a question regarding this: for behold, regarding terumot we learned in the second chapter (Mishnah Terumot 2:6): Anything that is shaatnez with its fellow—one may not separate terumah from this for that. And wheat and spelt are shaatnez, and likewise barley and spelt, and likewise barley and rye, as we learned at the beginning of Kilayim. And how is challah different from terumah, that through nishuch one may separate, even though they were not kneaded together? However, in the Yerushalmi it is because the doughs are similar to one another (Tosafot Menachot 70a). Furthermore: since there is not a shiur in each one—the nishuch effectively makes them one. But if in truth there is a shiur of challah in this one and a shiur of challah in that one, in truth they do not combine regarding the matter of separating from this for that, as long as they are shaatnez with one another. Therefore, wheat does not combine with any of them, and one does not separate from wheat for them, nor from them for wheat. And spelt and rye, one separates from this for that, and likewise oats and barley, one separates from this for that. And so ruled the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:2). And if in one there is a shiur, and in one there is not—it combines, just as when there is not a shiur in both of them (Taz subsection 3). And it appears to me that one should separate from that which has a shiur, and it shall exempt also that which does not have a shiur, regarding the matter that if there later combines with it more of its kind less than a shiur, it will not combine with this which was already exempted by way of separation from a dough that had a shiur. But one should not separate from that which does not have a shiur to exempt that which has a shiur, for since it does not need it—it is not exempted by the separation of this one which does not have a shiur. And all this is when they are joined by nishuch together, for if not so, they have no connection to one another.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:2): If one mixed a kav of dough with another kav of dough of a different species, and divided them afterward, and added to each one a quarter-kav of its own species—it is liable for challah, since they did not combine when they were mixed. But if one mixed a kav of flour with a kav of flour of another species with the intent to divide it, and added to each one a quarter-kav of its own species—it is exempt. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: For later in siman 326 it will be explained that when one householder kneads five quarters with the intent to divide it—it is liable for challah, and the fact that his intent was to divide it is of no effect. And since it was explained previously that when one kneads all the species together they all combine with one another, but if he did not knead them together but rather brought them close through neshikah—they do not combine except for species with its own species according to the laws that have been explained. And regarding this he said: If one mixed a kav of dough with another kav etc., meaning: that he kneaded a kav of wheat by itself and a kav of barley by itself, such that there is not a shiur of challah in each one, even if he mixed them through neshikah and then went back and divided them afterward, and added to the wheat a quarter of wheat, such that it became five quarters, and a quarter of barley to the barley—they are liable for challah, for they were not previously exempted by their neshikah to one another. But if he mixed a kav of flour with a kav of flour of another species, and kneaded them together such that they became liable for challah, therefore when he divided them afterward and added a quarter to each one—it is exempt, because the kavs were already obligated. And there remains now only a quarter for each one, and a quarter does not have a shiur of challah. And it is simple that this deals with a case where he separated challah previously, for if not so, their obligation is still upon them. But in the first clause, even if he separated—it is nothing, since they do not combine with one another. And its source is from the words of the Rosh and the Tur, see there (and also in the Rosh and Tur it must be said as I have written).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (Mishnah Challah 2:6): Five quarters of flour are obligated in challah. They, their leaven, their fine bran, and their coarse bran together totaling five quarters are obligated. If their coarse bran was removed from them and returned to them, they are exempt. See there. And the Shas explains at the end of the seventh chapter of Shabbat (Shabbat 76b) that this is because a poor person eats his bread from a mixed dough; that is to say: even though a wealthy person does not eat bread when the fine bran and coarse bran have not been removed from it, the poor person eats it. However, when it has been removed from it, it is not the way of dough to return it to it. So it is stated in the Yerushalmi; that is to say: in such a case, it is as if one mixed soil into it, for of necessity this is not part of the calculation. And know that "subin" refers to the fine bran, and "mursan" is the coarse.

And ostensibly it is implied from the wording of the Mishnah that specifically the mursan, when it was removed and returned into it, does not combine, but not the suvin. For if it were not so, why does it teach "if their mursan was removed from within them and returned, it is exempt"? Let it teach "suvin" and I would know mursan by a kal vachomer? And this is implied from the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:3) who wrote according to the wording of the Mishnah, see there. But the Tur wrote: if their suvin and mursan were removed and returned into them – it is exempt. See there. And also the wording of the Rambam at the end of the sixth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 6) is different, as he wrote: Flour that was not sifted but rather was kneaded with its suvin, since there is an omer in all the flour – it is obligated in challah. But if he removed the mursan from the flour, and then completed the measurement of the dough with the mursan that he returned to the flour – it is not obligated in challah. Thus far his words; he opened with "suvin" and concluded with "mursan" – learn from this that he holds like the Tur that it is all one. But according to this, the wording of the Mishnah is difficult, and it requires further study. (And perhaps this is the explanation of the Mishnah: even though the suvin remains in the flour, nevertheless if he returned the mursan – it is not effective. But conversely, when he removed the suvin and the mursan remained, and he returned the suvin – it combines. And all this requires further study. And it is simple that even if he returned the mursan, but completed the flour to the measurement – it is obligated in challah. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam. Examine closely and you will find it easy.)

The Rosh wrote: Ostensibly, it would seem that the five quarters must be measured in grain, not in flour, for we learn it from the dough of the wilderness; and there they would gather the omer, and afterward grind it in a mill. And I saw in Ashkenaz that the women heap the flour for the shiur of challah, and I attributed the matter to the fact that the volume of flour is greater than the volume of grain, etc. Thus far his words. That is to say: that we require five quarters of grain, and there will be more flour than five quarters. And based on these words, the Tur wrote: And they measure them according to the grain, and not according to the flour, etc., therefore when they fill the measure with flour—it must be heaped. Thus far his words. But all the poskim rejected his words (Beit Yosef and Bach and Perishah), for the Rosh himself concludes that he did not receive this from his teachers. And he already asked this question of the Rashba, and he answered him that if so, it is impossible to determine its shiur, for who can say to us how much the manna would increase? And the Torah spoke of the shiur of the omer and not of the shiur of flour that comes from five quarters of grain (Responsa of the Rashba part one siman 465). And so wrote all our teachers, that the shiur is five quarters of flour, and therefore this was not brought at all in the Shulchan Aruch.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:4) wrote: A kav of wheat on this side, and a kav of spelt in the middle – it joins them. And behold, these combine, and one must separate from each and every species. A half-kav of wheat on this side, and a half-kav of barley on this side, and a half-kav of spelt in the middle – they combine, and he separates terumah from the spelt for all three of them. Thus far his words. And this is the Tosefta, the second chapter of Challah (Tosefta Challah 2:3). And behold, in the latter clause the reason is simple: for the spelt combines via "biting" with the wheat and with the barley, and therefore even though wheat and barley do not combine via "biting" with one another, nevertheless the spelt that is in the middle joins them, even though among them all there is only a single shiur of challah. And automatically, he separates from the spelt. But in the first clause they labored over why he must separate from each and every species: for in this case as well, when he separates from the spelt, would it not suffice for all of them? And they wrote forced reasons (see Shach subsection 12, and Taz subsection 5, and Bach).

And in my humble opinion, the reason seems simple: for certainly if there were a half-kav of spelt in the middle, where perforce this half-kav would complete the shiur for both of them, he would separate from the spelt and that would suffice. But since there is a kav in the middle, we say that there is no need for the connection of the wheat and the barley, rather their law is a half-kav for the wheat and a half-kav for the barley. It emerges that they are two shiurim of challah, and if he separates from the spelt alone, perhaps he is separating from the side belonging to the wheat, and the barley will remain without challah, or vice versa. And as for being exact to take from the very middle—it is impossible to be exact. Therefore, from the wheat and the barley he is forced to separate, and from the spelt he truly does not need to separate. And the intent of the Tosefta is only that the separation from the spelt alone is not effective, as in the latter clause. And that which we wrote that a half-kav completes the shiur for both of them—this is according to the shiur of a kav and a half, and it is merely an example. And so too if there were a half-kav of wheat on this side, and a half-kav of barley on this side, and a kav of spelt in the middle—he also separates from the spelt alone. (And so wrote the Bach, that from the spelt he does not need to separate, and so wrote the Taz there. And the Derishah was uncertain about this, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Specifically, only something that is subject to challah joins them together when it is in the middle. But a kav of wheat on this side, and a kav of wheat on that side, and a kav of rice in the middle, we learned there that it does not connect them even when there is wheat on both sides, and certainly when there is wheat on one side and barley on the other side. Similarly, if between them was a kav belonging to a Cuthean, or a kav of terumah or challah, since it is not subject to the obligation of challah—it does not join them. And so we say in the Yerushalmi there. But if there was between them a kav belonging to another woman, even though the doughs of two women do not join together for the shiur of challah, nevertheless it connects the sides. And so even if there was between them a kav of another species that does not join with the sides through nishuk, such as barley between the wheat on the sides, nevertheless since it is subject to challah—it joins the sides when they are all through nishuk, for we consider it as if the sides were attached to one another through nishuk. And so if there was between them dough of hekdesh, it is stated in the Yerushalmi that it joins them. And so wrote the Rambam in the seventh chapter. And even though hekdesh is exempt from challah, nevertheless since if he wishes he may redeem it from hekdesh, and it would become obligated in challah—it is called something that is subject to the obligation of challah. Thus the Rambam wrote the reason, see there. And it must be said that this refers to where he consecrated it after it was kneaded, for if he consecrated it beforehand and the treasurer kneaded it, and afterwards he redeemed it—it is exempt, as we learned in the third chapter, and as the Rambam wrote in the eighth chapter, see there.

It appears to me that all those cases where we said that they connect the sides—even if this dough currently has no obligation, such as if its challah was already separated, or it belongs to the sanctuary, or it is impossible to join it to the sides, such as if it belongs to another woman—this is only when the sides are of one species or a species that joins together, such as wheat and spelt and the like. But when the sides are two different species, it is nothing. For what benefit is there that it connects them together, since they do not join one to another? And this is only beneficial if the middle dough is currently obligated in challah, and it joins to both sides, such as spelt between wheat and barley, for then they all join together as has been explained.

It is a known matter that one may not separate terumot and ma'asrot from the new crop for the old, nor from the old crop for the new. Nevertheless, if two kavs of wheat are placed, one on this side and one on that side, and both are from the new crop, and a kav of old crop connects them in the middle—it joins both of them; for it is no worse than "its challah was taken," since there is also an obligation of challah on the middle one. And similarly in the reverse case, when the old is on the sides and the new is in the middle. Nevertheless, a kav of old grain with a kav of new grain do not join with one another to become obligated in challah. And in the Yerushalmi there in the fourth chapter (Yerushalmi Challah 4:2) it asks: if wheat and spelt join with one another because they are similar to one another, certainly new and old should join. And it answers that spelt and wheat are two species, and people will not err to say that one may separate terumot and ma'asrot from this for that; therefore they said they do not join, see there. And it appears to me that this is only regarding rabbinic challah, for "they said and they said." But regarding Torah challah, since from the Torah they join and one is obligated in challah, how can the sages exempt it? And the reason this was not explained so in the Yerushalmi is because even in the Second Temple period there was no Torah challah at all, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 322. (And there is no need for what the Shach wrote in subsection 16. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

We learned in Hallah chapter three (mishnah 7): One who makes a dough from wheat and from rice, if it has the taste of grain—it is obligated in hallah, and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah. And if it does not have etc. And even though the majority is rice, because giving taste to that which is not its kind is from the Torah. So the Shas inferred in Zevahim (78a), see there. The Ramban asked in his laws of Hallah: Do we not maintain that specifically within the time of eating a pras, when there is a kezayit, is it from the Torah, but when there is not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras it is not from the Torah but only rabbinic? And here it is explained that it is from the Torah, for it teaches that a person fulfills his obligation of matzah with it, see there. And it was not satisfactory to the Ramban to say that here we are dealing with a case where there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, since the Shas did not mention this. Or perhaps he holds like the Rambam at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter of the laws of forbidden foods, that there is no obligation from the Torah unless he ate the entire pras, see there. And consequently we learned that according to the system of Rabbeinu Tam that "taste is like the substance" is from the Torah with taste alone, and we do not require a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and such is the system of the Rosh as we explained in siman 98—the mishnah works well according to its plain meaning. And indeed the Rosh in the laws of Hallah (siman 7) answers thus. And that which he wrote there "when there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras"—this is according to the one who holds thus as is explained there, see there.

The Ramban, of blessed memory, explained this Mishnah according to the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Challah (Yerushalmi Challah 1), which says that wheat drags the rice to make them like it, and thus they established it. And this law applies only to wheat and rice, not to other species. And that which the Shas in Zevachim inferred that "giving flavor" in a majority in a case of "species with a different species" is from the Torah, it inferred well: for if it were not so, but rather we were to say that the wheat is nullified against the majority of rice, if so, what benefit is the flavor of "dragging," since the wheat itself is as if it is not there, and how can it drag the rice? Rather, it is certain that "giving flavor" is from the Torah. And the Rosh, according to his reasoning, holds that this law applies to all species, since the essence of the prohibition is because of "giving flavor," therefore it is like it. And that which the Yerushalmi required the reason of "dragging"—this is regarding the matter of matzah, meaning: that granted that it is like it is entirely wheat because of the giving of flavor, however regarding matzah we require a substance that comes to fermentation, and rice does not come to fermentation. To this it says that the wheat drags the rice, and makes its nature like the nature of the wheat, and they come to fermentation. Thus the Rosh answered, see there.

And according to this, the opinion of the Rosh is clarified, that regarding challah this is the law for all species, but regarding matzah it is only with wheat and rice. And according to this, the words of the Tur in Orach Chaim siman 453 are astonishing, as he wrote: And if one mixed rice with one of these species and made a dough from them, if it has the taste of grain—one fulfills the obligation with it, and it is liable for challah even though the majority is rice. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding matzah, the opinion of the Rosh is that only with wheat and rice is this the law. And it must be said that the Tur holds that the Rosh is only reconciling the reasoning of the Yerushalmi, but our Shas in Zevachim, since it did not mention this reasoning—one may infer from it that it does not hold so. Rather, since the imparting of flavor is by Torah law, it is as if it were entirely wheat, and one fulfills the obligation of matzah with it. And so too here the Tur wrote thus. And I am astonished that the commentators of the Tur did not awaken to this, and it requires great study.

The Rambam in the sixth chapter of Bikkurim regarding the matter of challah, and in the sixth chapter of Chametz, transcribed the Mishnah in its form. And they wrote that his reasoning is due to "dragging." And certainly one must say so, for he holds that a kezayit within the time of eating a pras is specifically when one eats the entire pras, as I have written. According to this, for him, this law applies only to wheat and rice, like the words of the Ramban. Nevertheless, it is very puzzling: for if so, how did he not mention this logic of "dragging" at all? And the Ra'avad wrote regarding chametz that we require a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, see there, for he is among those who hold thus regarding all prohibitions; and as the Rosh wrote according to the approach of those who hold thus, as I wrote in section 23. And from this it is proven that he does not hold like the Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Ma'akhalot Assurot that one must eat the entire pras. And it requires further study why he did not dispute him there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote according to the wording of the Rambam in both places, as is his way.

However, besides this it is difficult: for in the Tosefta of Challah (Tosefta Challah 2:1) it says regarding this Mishnah: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is never obligated in challah until there is grain in it according to the measure. That is to say: the measure for challah is five quarters. And then even if the majority is rice—it is obligated in challah. And the halacha was decided in the Yerushalmi there according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And if so, how did the Rambam omit this? And indeed the Ramban there wrote this. And so too the Ra'avad here in Challah wrote this regarding the words of the Rambam, and this is his wording: It appears from the Yerushalmi that we require that there be grain in it according to the measure, like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, we do not require a majority of grain. Thus far his words. And therefore the Ra'avad did not write here that we require a kezayit within the time of eating a pras as in the case of matzah, since there is the measure of challah. But regarding matzah, where this measure is not relevant—the measure is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. But regarding the Rambam, it is difficult.

But the truth is that the Rambam rejected this from the halacha, for the master of the teaching in the Yerushalmi who said the halacha is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is Resh Lakish. And he follows his own reasoning in the second chapter (halacha 3) (Yerushalmi Challah 2:3) regarding the Mishnah that if one returned their bran into them, it is exempt. And this is the law in section 15 – Resh Lakish establishes it according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, see there. Therefore, he ruled like him. But Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi there disagree with him, and they hold the reason is because this is not the way of dough, as I wrote the reason in section 15. And according to them, the Mishnah does not follow Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and therefore he did not rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. (Pnei Moshe in Mareh HaPanim ibid. And the words of the Kesef Mishneh are very difficult, and it must be said that the Rosh and the Tur also hold thus. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

We further learned in the Mishnah there (Mishnah 10): One who takes leaven from wheat dough and places it into rice dough, if it has the taste of grain, it is obligated in challah; and if not, it is exempt. The Rambam wrote the Mishnah as it is, and so did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 10. The Ra'avad wrote: Provided that the leaven is from a dough that is obligated. Thus far his words. This is proven from the wording of the Mishnah itself, as it teaches "one who takes leaven from wheat dough," and why did it not teach "one who takes leaven and places etc."? Rather, it is certainly specifically from a dough obligated in challah. This is also explained from the wording of the Rash, who wrote: One who takes leaven from a dough whose challah has not been set aside. The Bartenura wrote similarly, see there. The Ra'avad follows his reasoning: that just as in the previous law there must be the shiur of challah in the wheat, and in leaven there is presumably no shiur of challah, therefore it must come from an obligated dough. However, according to the reason of "dragging," it is not necessary to say so. The Rambam wrote in this wording: Even if the leaven was wheat into rice dough etc. see there. It appears that he interprets "from wheat dough" to mean that the leaven is from wheat dough and not that it came from a dough whose challah was already completed. But it is impossible to interpret that the obligation is because leaven is a "stabilizing agent," for that is only rabbinic. It is possible that rabbinically, the Ra'avad and all the poskim indeed admit that it is obligated in any case. The poskim were very brief regarding this.

We have further learned there (Mishnah 8) (Mishnah Challah 3:8): One who takes leaven from dough from which challah has not been elevated, and places it into dough from which challah has been elevated, if he has provision from another place—he removes according to the calculation. And if not—he removes one challah for everything. See there. And at the end, the Mishnah concludes that "tevel prohibits in any amount" within its own species, see there. Therefore, even if the leaven is very small compared to the dough—it is not nullified. And what is the explanation of "if he has provision from another place"? The Rash wrote that if he has dough that is obligated, from which he can separate for this one twenty-fourth—he separates. And this is not like one who separates from the obligated for the exempt, for according to the Torah the leaven is not nullified, as "taste is like the essence" is according to the Torah. Thus far his words. And according to this, this law applies only to leaven. But regarding dough that was mixed—he does not remove from another place, for it would be from the obligated for the exempt. And also this is only according to the system of Rabbeinu Tam that "taste is like the essence" is according to the Torah in every case. But according to the system of the poskim that it requires a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, one must say here as well that it must be a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. And it appears to me that this is the reason of the Mishnah and all the poskim who specified "leaven" and not "dough," because there is a practical difference regarding the matter of provision from another place. But regarding separating from it and within it there is no practical difference, for there is mixing. (And the Shach in subsection 18 wrote: And the same law applies if dough that is not of leaven was mixed etc. Thus far his words. However, this is regarding the matter of separating from it and within it, and not regarding the matter of from another place. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And see what I wrote in section 42.

And the reason that he separates one challah for everything: either because there is "bilah" in a liquid substance, and dough is like a liquid substance since the flour is mixed very well. And we are not concerned that perhaps he will separate only from the dough whose challah was already lifted, for the separation will also be from the leaven whose challah was not lifted. And this reason was written in the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 190), and so it is implied from the words of our teacher Peretz which the Tur cited, see there. And according to this, the law is the same for dough with dough. However, the Terumat HaDeshen cited there in the name of the Maharam that there is no "bilah" except in a truly liquid substance like wine and oil, and not in doughs, see there. And according to this, it must be said that this law applies only to leaven, because it imparts flavor to the entire dough, and the obligation exists in all of it. And so it is implied from the words of the Rash there, who wrote: And if not, that he does not have an obligated dough—this exempt one becomes as if it were obligated, and he separates for everything one twenty-fourth. Thus far his words. And it must be understood: why does the exempt one become as if it were obligated? Rather, it is because leaven imparts flavor, as the Rash wrote previously, that "flavor is like the substance itself" is a Torah law, but there is no remedy except to separate from another place. But according to what I wrote in the previous siman, even this is no remedy, because he separates from the exempt for the obligated. (And the Shach there who wrote that the law is the same for dough—this is if we say that there is "bilah," as he himself wrote, see there. And so it is implied in Tosafot Yevamot 82a, s.v. Rabbi Yehuda, that flour in flour is exactly like liquid in liquid. And so we hold as the law regarding prohibitions, as I wrote in siman 109. And although there is room to distinguish, nevertheless it seems to me that for us regarding rabbinic challah, one may rely on the one who holds that there is "bilah." Examine and you will find it simple.)

One should be precise in this regarding the words of the Rambam in the seventh chapter, law 11 (Rambam Laws of Bikkurim and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 7:11), who wrote: One who takes leaven from dough from which challah has not been separated, and placed it into dough from which challah has been separated—he must bring a second dough, which together with this leaven will have the measure of a dough obligated in challah, and he places it into the dough from which challah has been separated, and separates from the second dough the measure of challah for it and for the leaven, so that he may take from that which is nearby. And if he does not have a second dough—this entire mixture becomes tevel. And he separates challah for everything, for tevel renders its own species forbidden in any amount. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: why did he require that the second dough must have the measure of challah together with the leaven? Behold, the leaven comes from an obligated dough from which challah was not separated. And if it is because of the second dough, behold it also, since it was joined to the obligated leaven, automatically it also became obligated, for "biting" combines them, as he himself wrote there previously. And it will be explained in siman 325. However, regarding this it is possible to say: when do they combine? When from both of them the measure of challah is made. But otherwise, even though one of them is obligated because it came from an obligated dough, nevertheless, it does not obligate the second when there is not between them together the measure of a dough obligated in challah.

However, this is certainly a wonder: since he himself wrote that this entire [mixture] becomes tevel, if so, why did he require that in the second dough there must be the shiur of challah together with the leaven, given that the entire dough becomes like the leaven? And it must be said that the matter is as follows: certainly, because tevel prohibits in any amount within its own species, it becomes as if it is entirely tevel, however, only rabbinically. And the Rambam is dealing with challah in a manner similar to the Torah law, such as in Eretz Yisrael. And the proof: from the fact that he required it to be mukaf, and outside of Eretz Yisrael we do not require mukaf. And in truth, for us, if leaven from which challah was not separated was mixed into a dough from which challah was separated—there is no concern at all, for he can separate from the dough that the leaven was previously inside of and it will count also for the leaven; or if he already separated, it counts for the leaven, since there is no need for mukaf. Therefore, in Eretz Yisrael he required that there be between the leaven and the second dough the shiur of challah, in order to fulfill the obligation of challah also according to the Torah. But if he has no other, naturally we rely on the fact that tevel prohibits in any amount, and it becomes entirely tevel. And even though this is only rabbinic, even in Eretz Yisrael challah is rabbinic in this era, and even in the days of Ezra, as I wrote in siman 323.

And behold, the Rambam did not mention except that tevel prohibits its own kind in any amount, but that the sourdough imparts flavor he did not mention. And he follows his reasoning at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter of the Laws of Forbidden Foods (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 15), that a kezayit is required within the time of eating a pras and that he must eat the entire pras, as I wrote in section 26. And behold, our teacher, the Rema, in section 11 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:11) regarding this law of one who brings dough from another place, wrote and this is his wording: And even if there is not in this the shiur of challah. Provided that he places it next to the large dough. Thus far his words. For it implies explicitly that he did not require that there be in this and the sourdough the shiur of challah like the Rambam, but rather that it joins to the entire dough. And also from the language of the Tur this is explained, see there. And it must be said that it is because the entire dough becomes as an obligation, because tevel prohibits its own kind in any amount. But if so, why is dough from the outside required? And perforce it must be said that their intention is not regarding the entire dough but regarding the sourdough (and so wrote the Gra in subsection 14). But their language does not imply so, and it requires further study. (And furthermore for the Tur: aside from tevel prohibiting in any amount, behold sourdough imparts flavor. And his father, the Rosh, holds like Rabbeinu Tam. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

And as has been explained when leaven of obligation is mixed into dough of exemption, so too if leaven of exemption is mixed in: for example, that its challah was already taken from it or that of a Cuthean into dough of obligation, if he can separate from another dough, it is well; and if not, he shall separate from it and within it, for there is mixing. And therefore, among us the matter is common with bakers: that they leave a bit of the dough for the next day and knead another dough, and the dough that he left has already been exempted—we are not concerned lest when he takes challah from today's dough he will take the challah from the exempted dough of yesterday, since there is mixing. And it appears to me that even according to those who are stringent to say that there is no mixing—there is no concern here; since it is a small amount, that which remains will presumably be separated from the majority. And specifically regarding challah of the Diaspora, one may certainly rely on this without any hesitation. (And as for what the Taz in subsection 13 and the Shach in subsection 21 brought from the Maharil, who was stringent to take more than the leaven lest he take from the exempt, see there—perhaps it was a large amount of leaven. But in our case there is no concern. And so it appears to me to rule, and all the more so since from the majority of the poskim it appears that we hold there is mixing. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in any event, ab initio one should not rely on this, and one should not place sourdough of exemption into a dough of obligation. But if one already transgressed and did so—it is permitted ab initio to take from that dough and place it into another dough to serve as sourdough. Thus far his words. That is to say: if one already placed sourdough of exemption into a dough of obligation, and it is necessary to rely on mixing and to take the challah from there. But to take from this for another dough is permitted even ab initio; even if we were to concern ourselves with the stringency that in the first case one only took for challah from the exempt portion, nevertheless, to concern ourselves that in the second dough they would also only set aside for the separation from the exempt portion—we do not concern ourselves to such an extent. And it is obvious that his intention is when one takes from this before the separation, for if it is after the separation, behold the entire dough is already exempt. And how could one give it ab initio to another? And the reason he did not specify this is because it is obvious. (In the words of the Shach, subsection 17, one must be very precise, as the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote. However, regarding the law, there is no practical difference. And we have explained all the details, therefore one should not elaborate on this.)

Everything that has been explained applies to a mixture of leaven in dough, and similarly, dough that is obligated in challah that was mixed with dough that is exempt, such as when five revaim of flour were mixed into a large dough from which its challah had already been separated: in this case the law is that if it is possible to separate from another location, it is well; and if not, one kneads all the doughs together and separates from it, for we rely on the mixture. And the same law applies even if a measure of less than five revaim was mixed in, provided that it had already been kneaded into a large dough that contains the required measure, and one took from this dough and mixed it into an exempt dough. But if less than five revaim of flour was mixed into an exempt dough, or a dough that was less than the measure for challah when it was mixed into an exempt dough, in this case nothing is required, as is understood (and so wrote the Taz in subsection 10). However, if baked bread that is exempt was mixed into bread that is obligated, in this case there are other laws, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:12): One whose bread from which challah was separated became mixed with bread from which it was not separated, if he has flour—he should make a dough of five quarters [of a kav], and join it with the loaves in a vessel, and separate from it for those loaves that were mixed. And if he wants to separate from it itself—he must separate a little from each and every loaf, or join them all in one vessel and separate from each one for all of them, until he separates according to the count of the loaves and from one more. For example, if five from which it was separated were mixed with ten from which it was not separated—he should separate from six, for then he certainly separated from one from which it was not separated. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote that he should make a dough of five quarters—it is not of necessity, and he took the common way of the matter. And the law is the same if he makes one cake, since he joins them in one basket—it has become obligated in challah, as I wrote in siman 325. And automatically when he separates from it, he is separating from an obligation for an obligation (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 14). Rather, because here we are not yet dealing with joining by a basket but merely proximity, and in this one certainly needs the measure of challah as will be explained there, it is simple that in the diaspora he may eat from any bread he wishes provided that he leaves a little that contains enough for the taking of challah and that a little remains. And this law is common regarding matzah, when he separated challah from part of it, and from part of it he did not separate, and they became mixed together, that he must do as has been explained. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 325, see there. (The Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote that bread with dough are like two species. And in my humble opinion, it requires further study.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: One who bakes a pastida from dough from which challah was not separated, and inside it is meat—it is permitted to separate from another dough that is obligated in challah for this one, and the taste of the dough that entered the meat is also exempted. Thus far his words. And there is no novelty in this, except that he informs us that one can separate for the meat itself. For you should not say: since there is only taste in the meat, it is like separating from an obligation for that which is exempt or for that which is not of its kind. For it is not so, as "taste is like the essence" is according to the Torah. And even if it is rabbinic, all our challah is rabbinic (see Shach, subsection 24). And it is obvious that one can also separate challah from the pastida itself. And there is one who says that one cannot separate from the pastida, and this is nothing but a wonder (see Taz, subsection 15, and Dagul Mervavah who disputed him). And if one cooked dough from which challah was not separated in a cooked dish—he should take a very small portion of challah in a manner that there will be sixty in the dish against the challah, or in the dough one hundred against the challah. And we have already explained this in siman 323, section 15, see there. (And see Taz, subsection 15. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 13 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 324:13): Dough that does not contain the required measure, and at the time of its baking it swelled and grew until it appears as if it contains the required measure—it is exempt. And the same law applies if it swelled before baking. Thus far his words. The Rosh and the Rashba ruled likewise, for since it did not have the required measure at the time of obligation, which is from when one pours water into the flour, even though it swelled afterward—we follow the original state (Beit Yosef). And it must be said that this is not similar to that which we learned in the third chapter of Teharot (Mishnah 4) (Mishnah Teharot 3:4): An egg's bulk of food that was left in the sun and diminished, etc., they are pure, etc.; if left in the rain and they swelled—they are impure. See there, for we follow the present state. For there, every moment is equal regarding impurity, which is not the case with challah, where the primary factor is the time of its obligation. For if not so, shall we also say that when there was a measure for challah and it shriveled, it should be exempt? This is stated in wonder. Therefore, also in the reverse case, we follow the original state, for we require the measure of challah in the flour. And what does it matter to us if it swelled; ultimately, it does not contain the measure of challah (and so wrote the Ma'adanei Yom Tov in chapter 8).

One who needs to bake five quarters—it is forbidden for him to bake in two instances in order to avoid kneading the shiur of challah, unless he does not currently need that amount. And even though we learned in the second chapter of Challah: "One who cannot make his dough in purity, let him make it in kabin etc."—this was when there was purity. But now that we are all impure, there is no practical difference in this. And so we say explicitly in the Yerushalmi there at the beginning of the third chapter, see there.

And know that regarding what has been explained in this siman, that tevel prohibits in the slightest amount, I am astonished: for in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the third chapter of Challah (Yerushalmi Challah 3:5) it says that Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree on this. And it says there: Rabbi Ba said: In what do Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree? Regarding tevel that became tevel by Torah law. But regarding tevel that became tevel by their words—everyone agrees that the tevel is nullified by a majority. See there. And if so, regarding challah of the Diaspora which is rabbinic, how did the poskim rule that it prohibits in the slightest amount? And this requires great study. And even in Eretz Yisrael it is only rabbinic, for even in the days of Ezra challah was rabbinic. And perhaps they were more stringent as if it were Torah law, as I wrote in siman 323. But in the Diaspora it is fundamentally rabbinic.