Siman 325

Two doughs, neither of which contains the required measure, but when they combine there will be the measure: if they touch one another until they are slightly attached to one another, in a manner that when he wishes to separate them, one will tear slightly from the other—this dough is called "neshikah," and they combine when they are of one species or of the species that combine with one another, according to what has been explained in siman 324. That is, wheat combines with spelt, and spelt combines with everything. Barley combines with everything except for wheat, and rye with barley and spelt and not with oats; and wheat and oats with barley and spelt, and not with wheat and rye. And according to the Rambam, oats and rye and spelt combine, but two species do not combine through neshikah, but only through kneading together.

And the same law applies if in one there is the required measure, and in the second there is not the required measure – they combine through nishukh. And we have already written in the previous siman, section 32, that it appears that specifically when there is the required measure in both of them – they combine by means of nishukh. But if there is not the required measure, rather that one comes from a dough obligated in challah, and it was attached through nishukh to another – the nishukh does not make it so that it too becomes obligated in challah because it was attached through nishukh to the one that is obligated. For by what would it become obligated, since there is no required measure here? See there.

We hold according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said in the second chapter of Challah (Mishnah 4) that one who removes bread from the oven and places it into a basket—the basket joins them together for challah (Pesachim 48b). Therefore, even if one baked dough that does not have the required measure for challah, and afterward baked another dough that does not have the required measure, and placed them in one basket—they join together for challah. The Smag in the positive commandments (141) and the Rosh in the laws of challah (siman 4) wrote that, in any event, they must also touch one another in the basket; see there (and so wrote the Beit Yosef and the Gra, subsection 3). And there is one who disagrees on this, but it is not the primary view. (See Taz, Orach Chaim, siman 457, subsection 2.)

And specifically in a vessel that has walls, but if he placed them on a tablet that has no rim—they do not combine, for we require "inside a vessel." And this is an inquiry in the Gemara Pesachim (Pesachim 48b), and it was not resolved. And according to this, some have written that regarding challah of the Diaspora, which is rabbinic, it is permitted ex post facto, for a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. And the permission is that it does not combine, and there is no need for separation at all. And this is the opinion of the Rambam in the seventh chapter (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and the Rest of the Priestly Gifts in the Borders 7), who wrote that if it is challah by their words—it is exempt. And so wrote the Tur. And this is the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: And if he placed them on a tablet that has no rim—they do not combine. Thus far his words. That is to say: and it is exempt from challah. (And this is the intention of the Shach, small subsection 2).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that therefore when they are joined by a vessel—one should be careful that nothing protrudes above the rims of the vessel, that is, that no single loaf or dough is above the rims of the vessel. Thus far his words. That is to say: but if part of the loaf or the dough is inside the vessel, and part of it is outside the vessel—it is permitted; similar to "biting," for when it "bites" in part—it is permitted. And these words apply to joining by a basket, that part of it is sufficient. And just as joining by a basket is effective, so too if one covers all the bread with a cloth—it is like joining by a vessel, even though they are placed on the ground or on the table, for the cloth joins them like a vessel. And there is one who requires a cloth below as well (Pri Megadim in Orach Chaim siman 457). But from the wording of the Tur it does not imply so, and also there is no reason for this. And from the wording of the Shach, subsection 5, there is no proof.

And all this is when there is not a shiur of challah in either of them. But if there was a shiur of challah in each one, and he wants to combine them to take one challah for all of them – there is no need for either the combination of a vessel or touching. Rather, since both are before him – one separates from this one for that one. And only that they should be adjacent to one another; for also regarding terumah the law is so, and this is called "min hamukaf." And the law is the same if one has a shiur and the second does not have a shiur, the law is also so that there is no need for the combination of a basket or touching, but rather adjacency to one another. And he separates from that which has a shiur, and it counts for both of them (Bach and Shach subsection 6). And know that the combination of a basket only avails for one species or for species that combine with one another, like neshikah. (The Gra, subsection 5, wrote that without a vessel there is no need for mukaf at all, and with a vessel there is a need for mukaf. And see Nekudot HaKesef siman 326. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

According to what has been explained regarding Pesach, that if there is not a shiur in each dough, one requires the joining of a basket for challah; and if one forgot to take challah before Pesach – he eats without challah, according to the law of challah of Chutz La'aretz where one may continue eating, and afterward separates and leaves over a piece from every matzah; and on the conclusion of the Yom Tov, he places all the pieces near all the matzot with the joining of a basket or by spreading a cloth, and takes challah with a berakhah. And even though this matter of eating and afterward separating – this applies to a dough kneaded together and not to two doughs, for with two doughs one certainly requires muqqaf as is explained in the Rishonim, nevertheless, in this case where he leaves over from every matzah – it is as if the entire dough is still in its completeness, since there is some of the dough before him on the conclusion of Yom Tov. And this is muqqaf, and he separates one for all of them. (See the Taz and Magen Avraham in Orach Chayim siman 457, who raised a difficulty from the words of the Rosh in Beitzah to Pesachim. And it is not a difficulty at all: for in Pesachim the Rosh is dealing with one dough to which he joins another dough, and as he wrote there in the Kitzur Piskei HaRosh. And in Beitzah he is dealing with one dough alone, and as the Chavot Yair wrote there. And the Taz himself in subsection 5 wrote so in the second resolution, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy. And likewise, regarding that which they cooked from the matzah, kneidlach or chremslach, from which challah was not taken – he should leave over a little from each one, for it is impossible in any other way. And regarding challah of Chutz La'aretz, one may rely on this in a time of pressing need, if they will spoil by the conclusion of Yom Tov. And if they will not spoil – it is good to leave them until the conclusion of Yom Tov and join them to the matzah.)

And there is reason to doubt whether the combination of a basket functions exactly as if they were kneaded together or not. And the practical legal difference is regarding matzah: if they were all combined in one vessel, if we say that it is as if they were kneaded together, if so, one does not need to set aside from every matzah as I have written. Rather, he eats all of them and leaves over one matzah. And indeed, there are some of the great authorities who hold so (Pri Chadash in Orach Chaim there). And according to this, we must say that that which is explained in the Tosafot and the Rishonim to leave over a piece from every matzah, this is when they were not all combined in one vessel but in two vessels; or that the combination of a basket only creates an obligation for challah, but it is not considered as if they were kneaded together, and one must leave over from every matzah as I have written. And so is the primary ruling. And there is clear proof for this, that the combination of a basket is not like kneading together: for in kneading, all species combine with one another. But in the combination of a basket, it is only with its own species, as with "biting," as has been explained. (Also the Makor Chaim there, subsection 1, disputed the Pri Chadash, see there. And what the Magen HaElef wrote in subsection 4, those are puzzling words, see there. And what he cited regarding this from the Beit Yosef—it is not so in the Beit Yosef. And what the Beit Yosef wrote regarding when they were not combined, this refers to the words of the Mordechai who wrote the enactment to bake, and not the enactment to leave over from each one, because he is dealing with when they were not combined. And the primary ruling is like the Makor Chaim and as I have written, and it is proven so in the Tosafot and all the Rishonim. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And if he placed the matzah in two vessels, and took challah from one vessel, and from one he did not take—it is obvious that there is no remedy for this except by baking a new dough. For here it is impossible to separate from the second vessel, lest he take the challah from that which was kneaded together with the challah he separated from the first vessel and was already exempted, and it would be from the exempt for the obligated. However, if he took from the first vessel from one matzah, there is a remedy: that he take from a number of matzot from the second vessel, in a manner that there will be one more than the amount baked from one dough. And it has been further explained in Orach Chaim there.