Siman 328

At the time that one takes the challah, one blesses: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to separate terumah" or "to separate challah." And some have written to say "terumat challah" (Rashal and Derishah), and some have hesitated regarding this (Taz). And they all agreed that it is better to say "to separate terumah," as it is written: "as challah you shall lift up a terumah" (Shach, subsection 1, and Beit Yosef). For "challah" is the name of the cake, and what is its relevance to the blessing (Derishah, see there)? And there are those who throughout the entire year bless "to separate challah," and on the eve of Pesach they bless "terumat challah." And they cried out against this, for there is no difference between Pesach and all other days of the year. And so all the great authorities agreed (Shach and Taz and Magen Avraham in siman 457).

And in truth, one must wonder at the custom that they are accustomed to say "challah" and not "terumah," and even if it is not a hindrance; nevertheless, certainly the custom of Israel is Torah. And I say that it is certainly so, for in the time when they would separate two challot, one for the fire and one for the kohen, the matter is certainly simple: that which is given to the kohen is called "terumah," like terumah from the language of "lifting" (heramah), as one lifts from his portion and gives to another. And this one for the fire is called "challah," for how does the name "terumah" apply to it since it is burned? And from the words of the Bahag I learned this, as he wrote, and this is his wording: And when a woman takes terumah from the basin, she must bless "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to separate challah." And after she casts it into the oven, she should separate another without a blessing, etc. And where one baked and did not separate neither challah nor terumah. Alternatively: if one separated challah and did not separate terumah, he takes one loaf and a minor kohen eats it. If one separated terumah and did not separate challah, he takes one loaf and even a Kohen Gadol eats it, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he calls the challah of the kohen "terumah," and the challah of the fire "challah." And therefore with us, where there is only the challah of the fire, we bless "to separate challah." And therefore the Bahag also wrote "to separate challah." And according to this, our custom is established properly and correctly.

Since a blessing is required, it is therefore forbidden for a man to separate his challah while he is naked; even if he is sitting on the ground, because his nakedness is prominent. However, a woman, when her lower parts are pressed against the ground, may separate while naked, because her nakedness is covered. So wrote the Tur. And from this it would seemingly imply that if he covers his nakedness, it is permitted. But in truth it is not so, for we maintain "his heart seeing the nakedness is forbidden," as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 74. And it is understandable that regarding a woman this does not apply, as I wrote there in section 4, see there. But regarding a man, there must be a separation between the heart and the nakedness. And the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch is more precise, as he wrote in the fifth chapter: This is his wording: Therefore, a man may not separate while naked, for he cannot recite a blessing. See there. (And the Shach in subsection 2, who wrote the reason that his nakedness is prominent—did not need this. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

At the beginning of Terumot (Mishnah Terumot 1:1) we learned: Five may not separate terumah, and if they separated terumah—their terumah is not terumah: The deaf-mute, the deranged, the minor, and one who separates terumah from that which is not his. And a Cuthite who separated terumah even as an agent of an Israelite, because he has no agency; and the same law applies to challah. We further learned there (Mishnah Terumot 1:2): A deaf person who speaks but does not hear—should not separate terumah, because he does not hear the blessing. But if he separated terumah—his terumah is terumah. And the same law applies to challah. We further learned there (Mishnah Challah 1:6): Five may not separate terumah, but if they separated terumah, their terumah is terumah: The mute, the drunkard, the naked, the blind, and the ba'al keri. For a mute cannot bless, and likewise the naked and the ba'al keri. And post facto it is terumah, because blessings are not indispensable. And the same law applies to challah. Only a drunkard and a blind person are permitted regarding challah even ab initio, for regarding terumah the reason is lest they not select from the best; and regarding challah this is not applicable, as there is no "best" and "bad" in challah. (And with this you will understand why the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 2 wrote only the law of the blind and the drunkard, see there, because regarding the others they are equal to terumah.)

And know that even though regarding the blessing over the mitzvot one must bless while standing, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 8 regarding tzitzit, and in siman 585 regarding shofar, and they brought from the Yerushalmi that the same law applies to all blessings (see there in the Beit Yosef and in the Pri Megadim and Machatzit HaShekel); if so, why did we learn in a Mishnah that a woman sits and separates her challah, as I wrote in section 3? Is it because challah comes to permit the food for consumption and is not so similar to the blessing over the mitzvot, and is more similar to the blessing over pleasures like shechitah (Magen Avraham there, subsection 1)? Furthermore: even there it is not a requirement that invalidates, as is explained there. Therefore, in the case of a naked woman where it is impossible otherwise, it is like a post-facto situation. But when she is dressed, she blesses while standing. And such is the simple custom and one should not deviate. And know that in a place where they take two challot, nevertheless she has only one blessing over the first one.

One may not separate challah without the permission of the owner of the dough. And if he separated it—it is nothing, as with terumah. Only regarding a kneader did the great authorities write that if he separated it—post facto it is permitted if it is pleasing to the homeowner (Bach and Shach, subsection 5). However, if he gave permission to another to separate even while it is still flour—it is effective even though it has not yet become obligated, and the reason we explained in siman 327, section 2, see there. Therefore, a guest for whom they bake bread specifically for himself should say to the mistress of the house to separate challah for him from all the doughs she will make for him as long as he is in her house, so that she will not need to take permission every time. And even though he has not yet taken the flour and the flour is not in his possession, nevertheless it is not like a thing that has not yet come into the world, for flour is available in the market. Therefore, he can appoint an agent for this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: However, if we know that it is a benefit for the owner of the dough, such as if the dough was becoming spoiled—it is permitted to take challah without his permission, for one may act in a person's interest in his absence. Similarly, a maidservant in the house may take challah without his permission, since it is customary for the mistress of the house to give her permission. Two partners do not need to take permission from one another, but another person must take permission from both of them. Thus far his words. And the later authorities wrote that even a maidservant should not take without the permission of the mistress of the house, unless the dough is becoming spoiled. And another person, even in such a case, should not take, and specifically on the eve of Shabbat when every woman is meticulous regarding the mitzvah of challah, the maidservant should not take without her permission (see Shach and Taz and Be'er Heitiv and Ketzot HaChoshen siman 243). However, if the maidservant took after the fact—it is challah; for she is no worse than a kneader, and presumably it is pleasing to the mistress of the house. And it is a simple matter that if she commanded her not to take and she took, her challah is nothing. And if the master of the house commands her to take challah—she should take, and she does not require the consent of the mistress of the house (it appears to me).