Bikkurim - Chapter 5

This phrase translates the Hebrew terumah, for that term is also applied to challah in certain contexts. For that reason several of the laws that apply to terumah also apply to challah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 133) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 385) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam considers separating the dough and giving it to the priests as two parts of the same mitzvah. The Ramban, by contrast, considers them as separate mitzvot.

The heading of this set of halachot is “The Laws of the First Fruits and the Other Presents [Given] to Priests in the Outlying Areas.” In the first four chapters, the Rambam discussed the first fruits. Now he proceeds to explain the other presents. He begins with because it also involves grain and is also called terumah. See Radbaz.

By calling it “the first,” the Torah is implying that there is a second, i.e., that something is left over [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9), based on the Jerusalem Talmud]. See also Hilchot Terumah 3:5 and note the contrast to Chapter 2, Halachah 17.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 2:7) gives another reason for the difference in measures. Ideally, the requirement would only be one forty-eighth. Nevertheless, generally, the one separating challah from the dough is a woman and women are by nature tightfisted. If they are told to give one twenty-fourth, they will ultimately give a forty-eighth. The Siftei Cohen 322:2 gives another reason for. reducing the measure required of a baker. He is preparing the dough for profit and our Sages did not desire to cause him a loss.

Our Sages desired that their laws be uniform out of fear that once distinctions were made, individuals would ultimately give less than the desired amount.

. Cha/lahwhich is impure may not be eaten by a priest and may be used only as fuel. An ordinary person may, however, partake of a loaf made from impure dough. Hence, rather than waste the dough, it is preferable to give a smaller portion as challah.

Challah which is impure may not be eaten by a priest and may be used only as fuel. An ordinary person may, however, partake of a loaf made from impure dough. Hence, rather than waste the dough, it is preferable to give a smaller portion as challah.

I.e. the person separating the dough would benefit from it becoming impure, because he will have to give a smaller portion to the priest.

See Hilchot Terumah 11:1. At present, since all dough is impure, theoretically, this is the measure which should be given (Siftei Cohen 322:3). In practice, however, even impure challah is not given to a priest in the present era.

Who led the return to Zion after the Babylonian exile.

See Hilchot Terumah 1:5, 26. Even the Ra’avad, who differs with the Rambam with regard to terumah, finds this position acceptable with regard to challah. See also Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 20:3.

Provided the dough is made in Eretz Yisrael. The converse applies with regard to the following clause. The dough must be made in the Diaspora (Radbaz).

The Ra’ avad maintains that challah must be separated from such dough by Rabbinic decree. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is obvious from the following halachah.

See Hilchot Terumah 2:17. Since the Diaspora is ritually impure by Rabbinic decree, any dough brought from there to Eretz Yisrael would be consigned to destruction. However, it should not be burnt immediately, because we do not know that it definitely contracted ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael, and it is forbidden to bum challah unnecessarily. Nor may it be returned to the Diaspora, lest people think it is permitted to take challah from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:10)].

See Chapter 2, Halachah I.

Since the dough is chametz, “leavened,” it must be destroyed before the onset of the Pesach holiday.

See Hilchot Terumah 1:8.

See Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Terumah 1 :7.

Thus in a strict halachic sense, this land has the status of the Diaspora.

Since this land was once Eretz Yisrael, not everyone knows that it is impure like the Diaspora.

Where certain of the agricultural laws that must be observed in Eretz Yisrael are observed. See Hilchot Terumah 1 :4.

For everyone knows that the Diaspora is impure.

So that food is not wasted.

A man becomes a zav when he has an emission from his urinary tract similar, but not identical to that which results from gonorrhea. A woman becomes a zavah when she experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than would be expected due to her menstrual cycle. In both cases, the individuals are ritually impure. See Leviticus, ch. 15.

In certain instances, a distinction is made between impurity that results from a physical condition in one’s body - such as the above - and other types of impurity (see Halachah 10). However, no such distinction is made here. The Ra’avad differs with this ruling and maintains that the challah is forbidden to any priest who is ritually impure, citing his statements in Hilchot Terumah 7:8. The Rambam’s ruling here appears to differ from his ruling in that source. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the leniency here applies only after the priests have immersed in a mikveh. The Radbaz explains that here we are speaking about two challot, with one being burnt. Hence the one given to the priest may be eaten.

The shifting of this phrase from the previous halachah to this halachah is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and also makes for an easier reading of the text.

Which affects everyone in the present age, for we do not have a red heifer to purify ourselves.

As is the law with regard to challah that became impure because of factors beyond one’s control (Halachah 4).

At present the obligation to separate challah in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in origin (Halachah 5). Nevertheless, since the original obligation there wasScriptural, the challah that is separated must have a minimum measure even though it is burnt.

Although at present, everyone knows that all the people living there are ritually impure, no deviation was made from the original ruling.

For according to Scriptural Law, there is no need to separate it.

Because there is a more serious dimension to their ritual impurity {the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:8)]. See also Hilchot Terumot 7:8-9. As mentioned there, the Ra’avad differs with this ruling.

A woman who is impure because of menstrual bleeding.

A skin malady resembling - but not entirely similar to - leprosy which renders a person ritually impure.

To be burnt. Since he is not separating a second challah, the law is more stringent than in Halachah 8, which can be eaten by priests with this level of impurity (R. adbaz).

And a priest who immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity could not partake of terumah until sunset of the day he immersed himself (Hilchot Terumah 7:4).

For purification from such itnpurity requires the ashes of the Red Heifer and those were not available after the destruction of the Temple.
The Ra’avad differs with this ruling as well and maintains that even after immersing, such a priest may not partake of challah. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 322:3-5) quotes the Rambam’s rulings in all the above matters. The Rama writes that since at present, it is not customary to partake of challah in any place, even in Eretz Yisrael, only one challah is separated. There is no minimum measure to it (although it is desirable that · it be the size of an olive). This challah is burnt.

The Ra’avad states that one should conclude “to separate terumah,” for challah is also referred to as terumah. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 328:1) quotes the Ra’avad’s ruling. The Rama states that the Rambam’s version of the blessing is also acceptable. The Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen 328: 1 speak of a conclusion that combines both terms “to separate terumah, challah.”

Even though the obligation to separate challah in the Diaspora is only Rabbinic in origin, it is appropriate to recite a blessing, as it is appropriate to do so when fulfilling other Rabbinic commandments (Radbaz).

And it is not fitting to observe a mitzvah without reciting a blessing.

For her nakedness is covered by the ground. A man’s, by contrast, projects outward.

I.e., the individuals who are impure because of a physical condition mentioned in Halachah 10.

Although her touch would render an article ritually impure, it is ritually impure in any case, because we are all impure due to contact with a human corpse. Hence, there is no difficulty with her touching·it.

See Halachot 10-11.

The term midama'at used by the Rambam refers to a mixture of terumah (or challah of Scriptural status) with other substances.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, the presence of a forbidden substance is nullified when it is mixed with a greater quantity of permitted substances (bittul berov). In this instance, it is not necessary to have a majority of permitted food, half and half is sufficient, for this challah is forbidden only as a Rabbinic injunction.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that although Bechorot 27a indicates that a majority is necessary, the Rambam’s ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 4:8), from which it is evident that half and half is acceptable. Moreover, the Tur (Yoreh De ‘ah 323) states that according to the Rambam’s understanding that at the outset, it is pennitted to nullify a Rabbinic prohibition, one may intentionally make such a mixture.
The Rambam’s ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 323:1). The Tur and the Rama cite Rabbenu Asher’s view that, like terumah, there must be 101 times the forbidden amount before the challah is nullified.

As stated in Hilchot Terumah 6:2, an unlearned priest is unfamiliar with and/or careless in the observance of the laws of ritual purity. Hence, he is not given terumah, lest he cause it to become impure.

Our translation is slightly loose. The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words, quoted from Bechorot 27a is “(the decree against] a priest helping in the granary does not apply to him.” As stated in Hilchot Terumah 12:19, our Sages forbade that because it would appear that he is working so that he will be given the terumah. Instead, the terumah should be given him in a manner that connotes respect and reverence.

When the obligation is Scriptural in origin, partaking of the food on the basis of a stipulation that one will separate challah (or terumah) afterwards is forbidden. As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:21, the principle of bereirah - that retroactively, an action performed afterwards is considered as if it were performed at the outset - applies only with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law and not with regard to matters of Scriptural Law.
The Siftei Cohen 323:1 emphasizes that the leniencies in this halachah apply only with regard to challah from the Diaspora, for there never was an obligation to separate it according to Scriptural Law. Although, at present, separating challah in Eretz Yisrael is also a Rabbinic obligation, since originally the obligation was Scriptural, none of these leniencies are granted.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chall ah 1:9).

See Hilchot Terumah 3:17.

See Hilchot Terumah 5:7. After the fact, however, the separation is effective.

A deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor, a gentile who separated fromproduce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission, and a person who separated from produce that does not belong to him without the owner’s permission (Hilchot Terumah 4:2).

See Hilchot Terumah, ch. 5.

A non-priest and an impure person.

A priest, his wife, and his servants.

We are speaking of a person who is still in control of his faculties, but whose judgment is slightly blurred. If he loses control of his faculties entirely, he is considered as an emotionally unstable person. See Hilchot Mechirah 29:18.

I.e., with regard to terumah, such individuals are told not to separate terumah as an initial preference, because terumah must be separated from the superior produce and they are incapable of making that distinction (Hilchot Terumah 4:4). Nevertheless, this rationale does not apply with regard to challah.