Sifrei Bamidbar 110

¹(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this "coming" from all the other "comings" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written "And it shall be, when you come to the land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written "upon your coming" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land "whither I bring you there": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah. It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) "and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written "there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of "when you eat of the bread of the land"? From (Ibid 20) "the first of your dough," I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here "bread" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall separate an offering (terumah)": This speaks of the "great terumah" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah, you shall offer up an offering" already speaks of challah. How, then, is "you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the "great terumah," (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.) It is, therefore, written "You shall separate terumah" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written "the first of your dough" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah). If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)] For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc." R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) "As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it" (the challah). Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is "raised" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan "whispered" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written "As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it." It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser. ²(Bamidbar 15:21) "Of the first of your dough": Why is this written? (i.e., It is already written in the preceding verse.) From (the preceding verse) "The first of your dough," I might understand it to mean the first of (all) your doughs. It is, therefore, written "Of the first of your dough" — part of it and not all of it. (Ibid. 20) "The first of your dough": To include leket (Vayikra 19:9), shikchah (Devarim 24:19), and peah (Vayikra 19:9) as subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce (i.e., rice and millet), which is subject to ma'aser, is exempt from challah, then leket, shikchah, and peah, which are not subject to ma'aser, how much more so should they be exempt from challah! It is, therefore, written "the first of your dough," to include leket, shikchah, and peah as subject to challah. Or, let other produce be subject to challah, viz.: If leket, shikchah, and peah, which are exempt from ma'aser, are subject to challah, then other produce, which is subject to ma'aser, how much more so should it be subject to challah! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there, is of the five species, so, "bread" here (which is subject to challah) is of the five species. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "The first of your dough": I would understand this to include the dough of terumah and the dough of second-tithe. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "challah shall you separate as an offering": (The connotation is:) What is separated is holy and what remains is mundane, and not (as in the above instance) where both are holy. But they said: The dough of second-tithe in Jerusalem is subject to challah, (for second-tithe may be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem, so that it is not "holy" there). (Ibid. 21) "shall you give to the L-rd as an offering": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (20) "challah shall you separate as an offering," but we have not been apprised of the amount of the challah, it is, therefore, written "shall you give to the L-rd as an offering" — so that it comprises a "gift" to the Cohein. From here we derive: The amount of challah for a private person — one (part) out of twenty-four; for a baker; one out of forty-eight. For the dough of a private person is little, and it (less than one twenty-fourth) does not constitute a "gift" to the Cohein, whereas the dough of a baker is (relatively) large and it (one forty-eighth) constitutes a "gift" to the Cohein. R. Yehudah says: This is not the reason; but a private person is generous with his dough and a baker is sparing of his dough, and when he minimizes, he should not minimize less than one forty-eighth. From here it was ruled: A private person who makes a feast for his sons — one twenty-fourth; and a woman who bakes and sells in the marketplace — one forty-eighth. If her dough became tamei unwittingly or under constraint — one forty-eighth. If it became tamei willfully (i.e., if she deliberately made it tamei in order to give less challah), she takes one twenty-fourth (even though the challah is to be burned), so that "the sinner not profit." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Even if it came out to one-sixtieth, it is valid, so long as there was no (original) intent (for that amount). (Ibid. 21) "throughout your generations": to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith (the sabbatical year) as being subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce, which is subject to the tithe is exempt from challah, then the after-growths of shevi'ith, which are exempt from the tithe, how much more so should it be exempt from challah! — (No,) this is refuted by leket, shikchah, and peah, which, though exempt from the tithe are subject to challah. — No, this may be true of leket, shikchah, and peah, whose kind (i.e., other produce, which is not leket, etc.) is subject to the tithe — for which reason they are subject to challah, as opposed to the dough of shevi'ith, whose kind is exempt from the tithe, (ownerless produce [hefker] being exempt from the tithe) — wherefore it (the dough) should be exempt from challah. It is, therefore, written "throughout your generations," to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith as being subject to challah. From here they ruled: If one eats of the aftergrowths of shevi'ith before its challah has been taken, he is liable to the death penalty.