Menachot 67a — the Talmud in English

3.

The kneading

of dough while it is in the possession of

consecrated property exempts

from ḥalla,

as we learned

in tractate Ḥalla 3:3:

A woman who

consecrated her dough before she kneaded it, and redeemed it

before the treasurer kneaded it—this is

liable

for ḥalla when she kneads it, since at the time of kneading it is in the possession of a non-consecrated person.

But if she consecrated the dough

after she kneaded it

and it had already become liable for ḥalla,

and redeemed it,

it is

liable,

for the kneading was in the possession of a non-consecrated person.

But if she

consecrated

the dough

before she kneaded it, and the treasurer kneaded it,

meaning, it was kneaded under the authority of consecrated property,

and afterward she redeemed it, it is exempt,

because

at the time of its obligation—

namely, the kneading—

it was exempt.

But

Rava raised a question:

The kneading

of dough while it is in the possession of

a gentile—what is the law? Does it exempt? And Rava explained the intent of his uncertainty:

We have learned it—

we have learned it!

That is, this fundamental law, that the kneading of a gentile exempts, is certainly stated in the Mishna, for we learned [Ḥalla 3:6]:

A convert who converted and had dough

in his house:

If it

was made

kneaded]

before he converted,

it is

exempt

from ḥalla, since the kneading of the dough while it was in the possession of a gentile exempts.

And if the dough was kneaded

after he converted,

it is

liable,

for it was kneaded in the possession of an Israelite—

and if there is

doubt

when it was kneaded, it is

liable.

However, the doubt I am raising is this:

this—

this Mishna in which we learned that the kneading of a gentile exempts—

who taught it,

according to whose view—among the tannaim who dispute the law of the smoothing of a gentile’s produce with regard to tithes—does this Mishna hold? That is:

Is

it the view of everyone, even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah, who hold there that [the produce is] liable

for the smoothing of a gentile, nevertheless

here they exempt

with the kneading of a gentile, and because:

It is specifically

there,

with regard to the smoothing of a gentile’s produce,

that

it exempts, because

it is written “

your grain,” “

your grain,”

[the terms are] superfluous [additional], since this is stated three times in the Torah,

and if so, it is

a limitation after a limitation, and there is no limitation after a limitation except to include even

the smoothing of

a gentile—

That is, the three instances of “your grain” stated in the Torah: the first excludes the completion of the processing of consecrated property, which exempts according to everyone; the second and third are two limitations excluding the completion of a gentile’s processing. We have a general principle that “a limitation following a limitation serves only to include,” and therefore Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that even a gentile’s completion of processing renders the produce obligated.

That is, the three instances of “your grain” stated in the Torah: the first comes to exclude the smoothing of consecrated property, which exempts according to everyone; the second and third are two limitations excluding the smoothing of a gentile’s produce. And it is an established principle for us: “There is no limitation after a limitation except to include”; therefore Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah hold that even the smoothing of a gentile’s produce renders it liable—

But here,

with regard to ḥalla,

twice “

your kneading-troughs”

alone

is written

“Your kneading-troughs” is stated twice in the Torah], and therefore they are expounded:

One “

your kneading-troughs”

comes to teach:

and not the dough of gentiles; and one “

your kneading-troughs”

comes to teach:

and not the dough of consecrated property.

Or perhaps, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon

are the ones who

taught it

as this Mishna, which exempts the kneading of a gentile,

for

they

also exempt

the smoothing of a gentile’s produce—

But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah—

who render a gentile’s smoothing liable—

derive “

first” from “

first”

from there

from teruma], to teach: Just as with teruma the Torah included even the smoothing of a gentile’s produce, so too with the kneading of a gentile’s ḥalla, which we would have had to exclude because it is written “your kneading-troughs”; nevertheless, it is liable.

Rava said: May it be the will [of Heaven] that I see its resolution in a dream

May it be the will that I see the resolution of this uncertainty in a dream].

Rava then said,

Rava returned and resolved his uncertainty:

The one who says that the smoothing of a gentile exempts

holds that also

the kneading of a gentile exempts—

And

the one who says that the smoothing of a gentile does not exempt,

holds that also

the kneading of a gentile does not exempt, because we derive “first” from “first”—

And the Mishna that exempts the kneading of a gentile from ḥalla is the view of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon, who also exempt with regard to the smoothing of a gentile’s produce.

because they derive “first” from “first.”

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava,

who had said that according to the one who holds that the smoothing of a gentile does not exempt, the same applies to ḥalla: its kneading does not exempt, from that which was taught in a beraita:

A gentile

who separated

a lamb for the redemption of

his firstborn donkey,

even though this law does not apply to him,

and ḥalla [that is, or he separated ḥalla],

that is, he separated challa—

we inform him that he is exempt—

And his challa may be eaten by non-kohanim

And his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests

because it is not ḥalla at all, since the kneading of a gentile exempts,

and the

firstborn

donkey may be sheared and worked with,

since a gentile’s firstborn donkey is not forbidden for benefit.

And it follows:

but his teruma,

the gentile’s,

is forbidden,

because the smoothing of a gentile does not exempt.

And

this is difficult for Rava:

Here is this tanna who says that the smoothing of a gentile does not exempt,

since he holds that his teruma is teruma, and nevertheless

the kneading of a gentile exempts, and this is unlike Rava, who said that the one who holds that the smoothing of a gentile does not exempt likewise holds that its kneading does not exempt!?

And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava

from that which was taught in a beraita:

A gentile’s ḥalla in the Land of Israel [a gentile who separated ḥalla from dough made from his produce that grew in the Land of Israel],

from separating challa and teruma,

and his teruma outside the Land of Israel [a gentile who lifted teruma from his produce that grew outside the Land of Israel]:

That is, if this teruma became mixed with ordinary produce, the mixture is not forbidden because of the teruma mixed into it, since the gentile’s own teruma is not teruma at all.

we inform him that he is exempt

from separating ḥalla and teruma, and

his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests, and his teruma does not render [a mixture] dimua,

meaning, if this teruma became mixed with non-sacred produce, the mixture is not forbidden because of the teruma mixed into it, for even his own teruma is not teruma at all.

And it follows that specifically his teruma outside the Land of Israel is not teruma, since even that of an Israelite is only rabbinic;

but his teruma

of the gentile

in the Land [of Israel] is forbidden,

itself,

and

also

renders [a mixture] dimua,

forbidden together with the entire mixture if it became mixed with non-sacred produce.

And this is difficult for Rava:

Here is this tanna who says that the smoothing of a gentile does not exempt,

for his teruma in the Land [of Israel] renders [a mixture] dimua, and nevertheless

the kneading of a gentile exempts.

And this is unlike Rava!?

And we answer: In fact, according to this tanna, just as the kneading of a gentile exempts, so the smoothing of a gentile exempts, and in accordance with Rava. And as for what is difficult for you—if so, why is his teruma in the Land [of Israel] forbidden?—it is not difficult, because its prohibition is only

rabbinic,

for they made the produce of a gentile liable for teruma,

as a decree on account of purse-holders

wealthy people], since there is concern that they might devise a ruse to sell their produce to a gentile, the gentile would smooth it, and they would then buy it back from him, thereby avoiding teruma.