Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The commentaries raise a question concerning this ruling, because seemingly, the baker should separate challah himself. Moreover, because of the severity of the prohibition of challah, even the unlearned people were not considered suspect to refrain from making this separation. The Radbaz explains that we are speaking about an instance where the baker told the purchaser to separate challah, alternatively, an instance where the baker is suspect not to separate challah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the responsibility for the baker to separate challah applies only when the challah is ritually pure. Since it will be eaten by the priest, it is appropriate that the baker separate it When, by contrast, it is impure and must be burnt, it should be separated by the purchaser.

translated as “trays,” literally means “molds.” In the Talmudic era, bread was baked in various molds so that the loaves would be shaped differently. In his Commentary to the Mishnah the Rambam explains that there was an opinion which forbade separating challah from one tray for another lest the flour used to bake the different breads was from different years.

I.e., whether the dough is made from each of the species individually or a combination of any of the five, as stated in Halachah 15.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 1:1) derives this concept because there is an association between challah and matzah. Matzah may only be made from these five species, for they are the only species that can become leaven. Hence, it is these five to which the mitzvah of challah applies. See Halachah 11 which discusses the laws that apply when a dough is made using one of these grains and other species.

These mitzvot refer to grain left for the poor.

When the grain was left by its owner, it was ownerless and hence, there were no agricultural obligations incumbent upon it. Now, however, that someone took possession of it, those obligations do apply.

Because at this point it is not yet considered as grain. See Hilchot Ma’aser 2:3-5. Nevertheless, since a dough made from such grain will become leaven, there is an obligation to separate challah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:4)].

Before it was threshed; see Hilchot Terumah3:13, Hi/chot Ma’aser 3:19.

For as stated in Hilchot Terumah, op. cit., there is no obligation to separate terumah from such grain. And since there is no obligation to separate terumah, one might think that one is also exempt from the obligation to separate challah

As explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:11-12, three se’ah of barley would be harvested for the omer offering. That barley was then made into flour, sifted and refined until only an isaron (a far smaller measure) was selected for the omer offering. The remainder of the barley was redeemed and could be used for mundane purposes.

In all these instances, since the dough was prepared after it was redeemed, it is considered as bread belonging to an ordinary person. Hence, the obligation to tithe it applies (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Although produce of the second tithe is “the property of the Most High,” in Jerusalem, it is permitted to be eaten by ordinary people. Hence, challah must be separated from the dough (Radbaz).

Like the ownerless produce mentioned in the previous halachah, at present, it is the property of the person who took it as his own. Hence, there is an obligation to separate challah.

Although there is a possibility that the produce is a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which is exempt as stated in the following clause, there is also a possibility that this is only ordinary produce in which instance, an obligation does apply.

The Radbaz states that this law applies only in the present era when the obligation to separate challah is of Rabbinic origin. In that instance, the prohibition of a mixture of terumah offsets the obligation to separate challah, for they are both Rabbinic safeguards. If, however, the obligation to separate challah is Scriptural in origin, it would take precedence.

Together with the thanksgiving offering, 40 loaves (10 each of four types) were offered.

Together with the ram, a nazirite offered 30 loaves (10 each of three types). See for a description of these loaves.

To bring as part of his offering, rather than to sell to someone else.

This applies even if the dough is not large enough for each of the partners to receive a portion the size of an olive (Radbaz). Even though they intend to separate the bread after it is baked, as long as they do not intend to separate the dough, they are obligated to separate challah (Siftei Cohen 326:1).

We are speaking about a situation where a person bakes bread in order to give it to many people. He does not, however, declare the bread ownerless. Were he to do so, there would be no obligation to separate challah, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 6.

I.e., even though he should have separated the terumah before the dough was made, after the fact, his separation is effective.

The Radbaz questions why the Rambam does not mention the second tithe, for in the years that there is an obligation to separate it, one may not partake of the produce until it is separated.

The Radbaz states that the law depends on the intent of the person making the dough and not what it is eventually used for.

For the mitzvah applies only to dough prepared for human consumption.

Since the shepherds also intend to partake of it, it is considered as intended for human consumption and challah must be separated from the entire dough, even from the portion intended for the dogs.

Menachot 67a derives this from the fact that Numbers 15:20, the prooftext for the obligation of challah, speaks of”the first of your dough,” i.e., the dough of a Jew and not of a gentile.

The Radbaz maintains that the Jew may separate challah from the entire dough, even from the gentile’s portion.

Because there is no holiness associated with it.

I.e., the Jew thought that if he gave the dough to a gentile to prepare, it would be exempt and the gentile desired to separate challah from it. The Radbaz states that although generally we do not suspect that a prohibition is being violated, there is room to do so in this instance, because otherwise, why would the gentile think of separating challah?

As stated in Halachah 15.

Or any other of the five species of grain mentioned in Halachah 2.

The Turei Zahav 324:9 states this law applies to rice and not to other species, because rice takes on the flavor of wheat.

This applies even if, quantitatively, there is more rice than wheat. For the wheat is considered as dominant. The Ra’avad states that this ruling applies only when there is enough wheat in the dough to establish an obligation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam does not make · such a distinction. The difference of opinion between them centers on the interpretation of the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:5). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 324:9) quotes the Rambam’s wording without any further qualification. There is a similar disagreement between the Rambam and the Ra’avad with regard to matzah made from wheat and rice. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:5.

Yeast is singled out, because a small amount of yeast can affect an entire dough.

The Ra’avad states that this applies when the yeast is taken from a dough from which challah had not been separated. The Radbaz, however, states that it is possible that the Rambam does not accept that conclusion. In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 324:10) quotes the Rambam’s ruling without further qualification.

All of the instances mentioned in the first clause of the halachah are not bread in the simple sense. Nevertheless, they are all considered as dough within the context of this mitzvah.

Even though no water was mixed into it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 329:9)].

Since ultimately the dough was baked, the fact that the flour was boiled first is not significant (Siftei Cohen 329:8).

Similarly, dough boiled in water is not considered as bread, but as cooked food.

As long as there was an intent to use the dough for bread at one stage in its preparation, challah must be separated.

A mixture of whey and bread crumbs used as a dip.

This shape indicates that he may change his mind and serve the cakes as bread.

This indicates that he is not intending to serve the strips as bread, but will indeed crumble them and use them for kutach.

Our Sages derived this measure as follows: Numbers 15:19 states: “You shall separate the first of your dough as cha/lah.” As Exodus 16:16 relates, the amount of manna allotted to each individual in the desert was an omer. Hence we use that as the size of the required measure of dough (Eruvin 83b).

A revi’it is approximately 86 g, according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 g, according to Chazon Ish. Thus a log is 344 or 600 g, a kab 1376 or 2400 g, and the measure of the dough from which challah must be separated is 2500 (because the above figures are approximations) or 4320 g.

Shiurei Torah writes that a blessing should be recited when separating challah from a dough made from 3 pounds and 10 ¾ ounces of flour and one should be stringent and separate challah from a dough made from 2 pounds and 10.1 ounces of flour.

I.e., less than the measure described in the previous halachah.

This applies even though he is ritually impure and he knows that he will be separating the dough to have it burnt (Challah 2:3). The Turei Zahav 324:17 and the Siftei Cohen 324:25 emphasize that this applies only when the person’s intent in making the loaf small is that he will not have to separate challah. If he has another intent~ his actions are not sanctioned.

Which was also less than the prescribed measure.

This applies even though the loaves themselves are not joined together. One of the examples of the separation of challah with which many are familiar - ‘the separation of challah from matzah - employs this principle.

I.e., if small loaves are baked together in an oven, but taken out separately, there is no obligation to separate challah.

Even though at the time the dough was made, there was not a sufficient quantity to require the separation of challah.

The fact that they are joined is sufficient for them to be considered as a single entity.

Pesachim 48b mentions an unresolved difference of opinion concerning this question
among the Sages.

Like the challah separated in the present era, as stated Chapter 5, Halachah 5.

Pesachim 48b mentions an unresolved difference of opinion concerning this question among the Sages.

I.e., the flour together with the bran, even though the flour alone is not of sufficient quantity to require challah to be separated.

For a poor person will eat bread made from coarse flour containing bran (Shabbat 76b).

The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 2:6) explains that this is derived from Numbers 15:21 that speaks of”your dough,” i.e., the way dough is ordinarily made.

4. According to the Rambam, this halachah pertains to a baker and not to ordinary individuals. The laws pertaining to them are mentioned in the following halachah.

To sell to others to use the yeast to leaven other doughs without this dough being baked.

So that he will be baking smaller portions and not be obligated to separate challah.

I.e., private individuals who will use the yeast for themselves and not for commercial purposes.

Because the dough is not being made to be baked as bread, but to be divided as dough. Since it is being made for private individuals, the Rambam maintains that there is little likelihood that they will change their minds and have it baked. Even though the women did not give their flour to the baker together, the fact that he made a dough from them would have caused an obligation for challah had the intent been to bake the dough. Moreover, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 326:3) rules that if the women consent to having their flour mixed in a larger dough, an obligation to separate challah is created.