Bikkurim - Chapter 8

It is permitted to be eaten by a non-priest. Rashi (Kiddushin 46b) explains that the rationale for this law is that the prooftext requiring the separation of challah mentions "your dough," i.e., the obligation is incurred only when dough is made.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:1) clarify that this law applies when the person desires that the flour be considered as challah while it is still flour. If, however, he stipulates: "May it be considered challah when a dough is made from it," when it is made into a dough, his statement takes effect.

The priest is obligated to return it to the person who gave it to him. This applies even if the one who gave it is a Torah scholar who knows that flour cannot be separated as challah. Although one could assume that he was giving the flour to the priest as a gift, it must be returned lest the priest think that it was challah and not separate challah from the dough he makes from it (Kiddushin 46b; Turei Zahav 327:1).

Since the first separation is of no consequence.

I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that it is undesirable to separate challah in this manner, for as indicated by Halachah 4, the obligation to separate challah has not taken effect yet. Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 3:3), the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the statements in this halachah are a safeguard against the dough becoming ritually impure. From the time the water is mixed with the flour, it is permitted to separate the challah and one may do so if he is worried that the dough will become ritually impure. It is, however, preferable to wait until the dough is thoroughly mixed as stated in Halachah 4. Certainly, this applies in the present era when there is no need to take safeguards against ritual impurity [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:3)]

I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.

For then the dough made from that flour would have a separate obligation. When, by contrast, there is less than that measure, it is considered as ancillary to the initial dough.

This applies even if an omer of flour remains. Since he can easily mix the dough, he can make a stipulation that will take effect when he actually mixes it together. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:2) states that it is desirable to teach women who separate challah to make this stipulation.

Chapter 6, Halachah 16.

After the obligation to separate challah takes effect, however, it is forbidden to snack from the dough. It is considered as tevel and one is liable as stated in the following halachah.

For spelt flour has characteristics similar to wheat flour, and rye and oats to barley.

See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19; Hilchot Ma'aser 1:5; 9:2.

Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. This applies when he is given a warning before transgressing.

And thus challah need not be separated from it.

As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4. This applies only in the present era when the obligation to separate challah is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz).

Because the obligation to separate challah from the dough had already taken effect.

There is no obligation to separate challah from dough that is consecrated. Once, however, the consecrated dough is redeemed, challah must be separated. When a person makes dough from flour that was ownerless which he acquired, he must separate challah from it. See Chapter 6, Halachot 3 and 5.

In which instance, the obligation to separate challah had already taken effect before it was consecrated or declared ownerless.

Because it was consecrated.

Because the obligation to separate challah took effect when the dough belonged to the Jew.

For at the time the obligation to separate challah was to take effect, the dough belonged to the gentile and was exempt.

Because at the time the obligation to separate challah was to take effect, the convert had not converted and was not obligated to separate challah.

The Rambam adds this explanation (based on Chullin 134a), because generally, we would follow the principle: "When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him" (see Chapter 9, Halachah 13). Nevertheless, in this instance, because of the severity of the transgression, challah should be separated. The Turei Zahav 330:3 and the Siftei Cohen 330:8 note that in the present age, when there is a question whether of not challah has been separated, one is exempt, for at present the observance of the mitzvah of challah is Rabbinic in origin. On this basis, the Sifei Cohen questions why this law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 330:5),

Since there is a doubt concerning the matter, the person must make restitution for the challah, because whenever there is a question with regard to Scriptural Law, we rule stringency and require him to make restitution so that he can gain atonement. There is, however, no such obligation with regard to the additional fifth, because it was never definitely established that he was liable.

And thus, the obligation to separate challah has not been established. Hence, the principle that we are allowed to cause ordinary produce to become impure is applied.

For in this way, he will have defined the ritual state of the challah.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

We are forbidden to cause challah mandated by Scriptural Law to contract ritual impurity (Hilchot Terumah 12:1). In this instance, since the challah has not been separated, that prohibition would not be violated. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate challah has been established, it is preferable to be stringent.

Lest it be impure. Thus a priest who partakes of it would be transgressing, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 7:3.

Lest it be pure. In which case, it would be forbidden to destroy it unnecessarily. See Hilchot Terumah 12:3.

This refers to dough prepared in Eretz Yisrael when the obligation to separate challah was of Scriptural origin. See Hilchot Terumah 12:1. See also Radbaz.

A Talmudic measure roughly equivalent to a kilometer.

I.e., a mikveh or stream in which he can purge himself from impurity. Compare to Hilchot Tefilah 4:2-3 which makes a distinction whether the water is before him or behind him. See Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., a loaf to be set aside and used as challah for loaves to be baked in the future.

Lest over time he cause it to become impure. The person making the loaf is thus enabling the common person to transgress the prohibition against making challah impure.

By making the dough pure, the doughmaker is required to separate challah in a state of ritual impurity. That is problematic, because the common person may cause it to become ritually impure. Nevertheless, as will be explained, certain provisions are enacted to allow such a dough to be made.

A person who is careful in his observance of the laws of ritual impurity.

See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 6:2, Hilchot Keilim 1:6, et al. Thus even if the common person would touch the utensil, it would not become impure.

This warning is not true, for once challah is separated, a dough never becomes tevel again. Nevertheless, we assume that the common person will not know the law and will be careful not to touch the dough, because of this warning. We are not concerned about the dough itself, because one is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 12.

I.e., it is not desirable, because ultimately, there is the possibility that the challah will become impure.

Although the common person's wife is presumed to be ritually impure, nevertheless, since the flour is dry, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence even if she would touch it, it would not present a difficulty [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:9)]. This leniency is allowed only as an expression of "the ways of piece" (Sh'vi'it, loc. cit.).

I.e., needless to say, the wife of the chaver should not let the wife of the common person help her, for her dough would become ritually impure. She should not even help the wife of the common person for the reason stated by the Rambam.

And preparing dough in a state of ritual impurity was considered a transgression in the Talmudic era when the laws of ritual impurity were observed.

For then the baking process has already been completed.

Which is considered an intermediate level between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora with regard to many of the agricultural laws. With regard to its status for challah, see Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

Certainly, this law applies in Eretz Yisrael where eating bread from which challah was not separated is punishable by death at the hand of heaven. We do not suspect a baker of being willing to cause a fellow Jew to violate such a transgression. Nevertheless, the above applies only when the baker says that he has separated the challah. If he does not make such a statement and he is a common person, even in Eretz Yisrael, the purchaser must separate challah as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1 (Radbaz).

I.e., he can rely on the baker.

Even the common people.

We are speaking about a baker who is a common person. Even if he says that he separated challah, his word is not accepted (Radbaz).

Even if he is a common person.

We assume that a common person is careful about what he eats himself - and what he serves from his kitchen. It is only when selling retail that his integrity is suspect.