Siman 330

The dough of a Cuthean is exempt, as it is written (Numbers 15:21): "your doughs." And if he separated challah—it is nothing. And it may be eaten by non-kohanim and even by a non-priest Israelite. And conversely: the dough of an Israelite that a Cuthean kneaded—is obligated, for the matter does not depend on the one who makes it, but rather on the one to whom the dough belongs. And so it is taught in the Tosefta: A storehouse of an Israelite and Cuthean laborers are working within it—it is obligated in challah. See there. And the same law applies conversely—it is exempt. And it implies that even if the proprietor is not there at all, nevertheless, we follow the proprietor. And for this reason the Tosefta said "storehouse," meaning: a shop with merchandise, for since it belongs to an Israelite—we do not care that Cuthean laborers are engaged in all the work, and even if the Israelite is not there. And it further appears to me that even if the laborers purchase the flour, since they purchase it on the account of the Israelite and all the commerce belongs to him—it is obligated in challah. And even though he has no agency—a laborer is different. And furthermore: for the one who sells the flour sells it to the Israelite, and the laborers are merely performing a "monkey's act." And the same law applies conversely in a shop of a Cuthean and Israelite laborers, that it is exempt in such a case.

There are places where women come on Erev Shabbat and take from a Gentile baker a portion of dough from his large batch that contains the shiur of challah, and they separate challah from it with a blessing. They should be prevented from this, as it is a blessing in vain, for since at the time of kneading the dough was his—it is exempt from challah. Some have written that if they give him money prior to the kneading, since according to the Torah money effects a purchase—the dough is like that of an Israelite, and they act correctly (Shach, subsection 1, and Derishah). These words are astonishing, for it has already been explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 194 and likewise above in siman 320 that the opinion of most poskim is that only pulling effects a purchase even according to the Torah between an Israelite and a Gentile, and only according to Rashi and the Rambam does money effect a purchase. It is enough for us to rely on their opinion regarding the separation alone and not regarding the blessing. They also wrote another reason: since this is their constant practice, and the baker knows of this—he kneads from the outset with this intention, and it is as if he gave it to the Israelite as a gift before the rolling (ibid.). This too is astonishing, for in any case, how did the Israelite acquire it? Therefore, it is better to take challah without a blessing.

A Kuti who gave his dough as a gift to a Israelite, if he gave it to him before he rolled it—it is obligated in challah. And if after the rolling—it is exempt. And so too with dough of Hekdesh during the time of the Temple and he redeemed it from the treasurer, if he consecrated it after the rolling or if he redeemed it before the rolling—it is obligated. And if he consecrated it before rolling, and it was rolled in the hand of the treasurer and he redeemed it—it is exempt. For the primary factor depends on which domain it was in at the time of the rolling, as I have written several times.

Leket, shikhecha, pe'ah, hefker, and grain that has not reached a third of its growth, even though they are exempt from terumah—they are obligated in challah. For terumah follows the smoothing of the pile, and challah follows the kneading, and at the time of its kneading, it is his like all other doughs. And similarly regarding that which has not reached a third—it is not recognizable at all at the time of kneading that it is so. Rather, it leavens like all other doughs. And similarly, ma'aser rishon that was separated while still in the ears before terumah gedolah was taken from it, and then it is exempt from terumah gedolah, for terumah is exempt from challah. And this, even though it contains a portion of terumah, nevertheless it is obligated in challah. And similarly, the remnants of the omer that remain after the offering of the omer. And the remnants of the two loaves of Shavuot and the lechem hapanim, all those remnants, when they are redeemed before kneading—they are obligated in challah (Mishnah Challah 1).

Dough of ma'aser sheni in Jerusalem, and dough of shevi'it, and doubtful meduma – is obligated in challah. But meduma is exempt from challah. And "meduma" is when terumah was mixed with chullin in less than a hundred, for it is written "you shall lift up terumah" and not that which has already been lifted. And even though according to the Torah it is nullified by a majority, nevertheless challah, whose obligation is rabbinic even in the days of Ezra, is exempt (Rash, chapter one, mishnah 4). And behold, the Rambam also in chapter six ruled that dough of ma'aser sheni in Jerusalem is obligated in challah. And they wondered about him: for he ruled in chapter three of Ma'aser Sheni that ma'aser sheni is the property of Heaven. And in Pesachim we say explicitly that whoever holds this view, it is exempt from challah, see there. And several great ones labored over this and did not produce a clear matter. And we, with the help of Heaven, settled his words above in siman 306, section 10, see there.

Loaves of a todah offering and wafers of a nazir, if one made them for himself—they are exempt, for they are holy. But if he made them to sell them to nazirim and to those who bring todah offerings—they are obligated in challah, because it is in his mind that if he does not sell them, he will eat them himself, and they are made conditionally. Therefore, if he did not sell them—they are obligated in challah. And consequently, he is compelled to separate challah, for perhaps he will not sell them. And it appears to me that he may also separate with a blessing, since by law they are obligated due to the doubt. And it is stated in the Yerushalmi in the first chapter (Yerushalmi Challah 1) that one who makes dough from tevel, whether he preceded challah to terumah, or whether he preceded terumah to challah—what he has done is done. And if he separated the challah first—it may not be eaten until he removes for it terumah and terumat ma'aser. And if he separated terumah first—it may not be eaten until he removes for it challah, for it already became obligated at the time of the kneading, and it is impossible to exempt it from its obligation (the Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 6:7).

The Rambam wrote there (Rambam, Laws of First Fruits and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 6:6): The dough of partners, and one who makes dough for the public—is obligated in challah. Thus far his words. Now, the dough of partners is explained at the beginning of the chapter "Reshit HaGez." And "one who makes dough for the public" is a Tosefta in the first chapter of Challah. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote only "the dough of partners." And in truth, it is not understood what is "one who makes dough for the public"—meaning that many people requested him to make dough on their behalf, and is this not the same thing? And in truth, in the Tosefta, "partners" is not mentioned, only "dough made for the public," see there. But the Rambam, why did he double it? And perhaps his intention is that the obligation to separate is incumbent upon him. And it requires further study. And know that it is further stated there in the Tosefta (Tosefta Challah 1): One who makes dough to eat it as raw dough—is obligated in challah. But the poskim did not cite it. And perhaps they hold that we do not rule accordingly, for behold, if he baked it in the sun it is exempt, as I wrote in siman 329. And how is raw dough any worse? Rather, it is certain that we do not rule like the Tosefta. And perhaps it is a printing error, and thus it should say: "to distribute it as raw dough." And this law has already been explained in siman 326, and it requires further study. And the law of the dough of partners we explained there, see there.

An Israelite who is a partner with a gentile, if there is not in the portion of the Israelite the required amount for challah – it is exempt. And if there is in his portion the required amount – it is obligated. And he can separate from it itself, as we say "there is mixing," and automatically it will be separated from his portion as well, as I wrote in siman 324. And according to the one who holds "there is no mixing," he must separate from another location (see the Biurei HaGra, subsection 5, who ruled "there is no mixing"). And when there is in his portion the required amount, even if the gentile stands over it and it is public knowledge that he has a portion – it is obligated (Shach, subsection 6), and even if they purchased the flour together. And it is not similar to the firstborn of a pure animal in siman 320, for there even a partial partnership exempts. But dough can be divided. And arnonah dough from which one gives a tax, it was taught in the Tosefta there that it is obligated, because perhaps the official will not take it. And even if he cannot remove him with money, for perhaps he will change his mind and not take it. And so it is explained in Pesachim (Pesachim 6a), see there. And a gentile who had dough and converted (in ancient times), if he kneaded it before he converted – it is exempt. And if not – it is obligated. And if it is a doubt, he should separate without a blessing; for according to the fundamental law, since challah is rabbinic, a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. However, in several matters regarding challah, they treated it as if it were from the Torah. (See Shach, subsection 8. And according to what I wrote, it works out well. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5 and section 6: Two Cutheans who made a dough of the required measure and divided it, and afterwards they converted, and each one added to his portion after he converted until they completed it to the required measure—behold, this is obligated. If the dough was in partnership between a Cuthean and an Israelite and they divided it, and afterwards he converted, and each one added to his own until he completed and added to the required measure—that of the Israelite is obligated and that of the Cuthean is exempt. Specifically when they made it initially in partnership with the intent not to divide it, and they reconsidered to divide it afterwards. But if they made it initially with the intent to divide—even that of the Cuthean is obligated. Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matters: For in siman 326 it was explained regarding two Israelites in such a case that they are exempt, because the obligation of challah was upon them and they were exempted, it is impossible to combine them again for an obligation. This is not the case regarding two Cutheans who had no obligation upon them; therefore, when each Cuthean subsequently added to his portion—it is obligated. But when it was a partnership of an Israelite and a Cuthean, and in the portion of the Israelite there was not the shiur of challah, and there was never an obligation upon that of the Israelite, therefore if he subsequently added—it is obligated. But the Cuthean is exempt, for he was attached to the portion of the Israelite which is obligated in challah, except that he exempted it. And he kneaded the shiur of challah and was exempt, because he was not subject to the obligation. It turns out that his dough was already exempted, and how shall it now combine for an obligation? And this is the approach of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in the sixth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and the Rest of the Priestly Gifts in the Borders 6). And the Ra'avad disputed him: That on the contrary, his portion all the more so should be obligated after he added. And he explains another explanation in the Yerushalmi, see there. And the Rambam holds that the primary matter depends on the other side: If he is subject to the obligation, the side opposite him is called one that had an obligation of challah upon it and was exempted, and it does not combine further. And when the other side was not subject to the obligation, the side opposite him is called one that did not have an obligation of challah upon it. And therefore the Israelite is obligated and the Cuthean is exempt.

And regarding this they wrote: when is the partner of the Cuthean exempt? When they made it with the intent not to divide it and afterwards they reconsidered to divide it, for from the beginning the association of the Israelite exempted it and it is called having had an obligation. But if they made it from the beginning to divide it – that which belongs to the Israelite does not pertain to him at all, and even for him there was never a time of obligation. Therefore, he is obligated when he added to it afterwards.

It is known that dough of ownerless property is exempt from challah, as we do not read concerning it "your dough." Therefore, if one made his dough ownerless before it was rolled, and it was rolled during the time it was ownerless, such as if someone rolled it and did not intend to acquire it, and afterward another acquired it—it is exempt. But if he made it ownerless before rolling, and he acquired it before rolling, and then rolled it—it is obligated. And similarly, if he made it ownerless after it was rolled, and he or another returned and acquired it—it is obligated in challah, because the obligation already took effect upon it at the time of rolling. And this is specifically when there was no evasion in the act of making it ownerless. But when there was evasion in any manner—it is obligated. And so it appears to me from the sugya at the end of the fourth chapter of Nedarim, and as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 273, see there.

One who prepares dough to feed it to domestic and wild animals is exempt from challah, as it is written, "your doughs," and not that of wild and domestic animals. Therefore, even if a person eats from it occasionally, it is exempt, since the primary purpose of its preparation was not for a person. And that which we learned at the end of the first chapter (Mishnah Challah 1:8): "Dough for dogs, when the shepherds eat from it, it is obligated; and if not, it is exempt"—this is its explanation: that he bakes for the sake of the dogs. However, if it is common practice for the shepherds to eat from it, it is not called "dough for dogs." And if not, it is called "dough for dogs"; and even if it is a fine dough, it is exempt. This is explained from the words of the Rambam there. However, the Ramban wrote specifically when it is recognizable that it is for dogs, such as when it is not prepared in the form of bread. Otherwise, it is obligated. And the Tur explained that it is not fit for shepherds, such as when he mixed much bran into it. And it appears to me that they do not disagree with the Rambam: for certainly if he explicitly prepares it for the sake of dogs, it is exempt in any case. Rather, they explain what is presumably "dough for dogs," and therefore they were required to explain that there is a recognizable sign. And in the Yerushalmi there is a dispute regarding this. And this is not for the ruling but rather in the explanation of the Mishnah. (So it appears to me, and see Beit Yosef. And in Pitchei Teshuvah he wrote because of appearances. And there is no need for this, but rather as I have written. And be precise and you will find it easy. And the Tur brought the words of the Rambam regarding the law of one who buys from a baker outside the Land—he must separate challah out of doubt. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted it, as he follows his reasoning above in siman 119. And be precise and you will find it easy.)