Menachot 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

3.

Rolling

the dough when it is in the possession of

consecrated property exempts it

from ḥalla,

as we learned

in tractate Ḥalla 3:3:

A woman who

consecrated her dough before she rolled it, and then redeemed it

before the Temple treasurer rolled it: this dough is

liable

for ḥalla when she rolls it, since at the time of rolling it is in the possession of an ordinary person.

But if she consecrated the dough

after it had been rolled

and it had already become liable for ḥalla,

and then redeemed it,

it is

liable,

since the rolling took place in the possession of an ordinary person.

But if she

consecrated

the dough

before she rolled it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it,

meaning that it was rolled under the authority of consecrated property,

and afterward she redeemed it, it is exempt,

because

at the time of its liability

—that is, at the time of rolling—

it was exempt.

But

Rava raised a dilemma:

Rolling

the dough when it is in the possession of

a gentile—what is the law? Does this exempt it? Rava explains the intent of his dilemma:

Rava explains the subject of his uncertainty:

We learned it—

we learned it!

That is, this fundamental law—that a gentile’s rolling exempts the dough—is certainly taught in the Mishna, as we learned [Ḥalla 3:6]:

A convert who converted and had dough

in his house:

If it

was made

[rolled]

before he converted,

it is

exempt

from ḥalla, since rolling the dough while it is in the possession of a gentile exempts it.

But if the dough was rolled

after he converted,

it is

liable,

since it was rolled in the possession of a Jew—

and if there is

a doubt

as to when it was rolled, it is

liable.

However, the doubt I am raising is:

this—

this Mishna in which we learned that a gentile’s rolling exempts the dough—

who taught it? Which view does this Mishna follow among the tanna’im who disagree concerning a gentile’s completion of the threshing and processing of grain with regard to tithes? That is:

Does it follow

Does it follow

the opinion of everyone, even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, who there hold that a gentile’s completion of the processing renders the grain liable,

nevertheless

here they exempt

when a gentile rolls the dough, and this is because:

It is specifically

there,

with regard to a gentile’s completion of the processing of grain,

that

it exempts, because

it is written: “

your grain,” “

your grain”

are superfluous —for this expression is stated three times in the Torah—

and therefore

it is a limitation following a limitation, and there is no limitation following a limitation except to include even

the completion of the processing of

a gentile’s grain.

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, of the three instances of “your grain” stated in the Torah, one serves to exclude the completion of the processing of consecrated property, which exempts according to everyone, while the second and third are two limitations excluding the completion of the processing of a gentile’s grain. And we have an established principle: “There is no limitation following a limitation except to include”; therefore Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that even the completion of a gentile’s processing renders the grain liable—

but here,

with regard to ḥalla,

two times

“your kneading bowls”

alone

are written

[the expression “your kneading bowls” is stated twice in the Torah]. Therefore, they are expounded as follows:

One

“your kneading bowls”

serves to teach:

and not the dough of gentiles; and one

“your kneading bowls”

serves to teach:

and not the dough of consecrated property.

Or perhaps Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon

are the ones who

taught it—

this Mishna that exempts a gentile’s rolling—

for

they

also exempt

a gentile’s completion of the processing of grain—

But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—

who render grain liable through a gentile’s completion of its processing—

derive

“first”

“first”

from there [from the laws of teruma],

to teach: Just as with regard to teruma the Torah included even a gentile’s completion of the processing, so too, although we should have excluded a gentile’s rolling in the case of ḥalla because it is written “your kneading bowls,” nevertheless the dough is liable.

Rava said: May it be the will of God that I see the resolution of this dilemma in a dream [May it be the will that I see in a dream the resolution of this doubt].

Rava then said,

Rava subsequently said,

Rava returned and resolved his doubt:

The one who says that a gentile’s completion of the processing exempts

holds that

a gentile’s rolling also exempts—

and

the one who says that a gentile’s completion of the processing does not exempt,

holds that

a gentile’s rolling also does not exempt,

because we derive “first” from “first.”

And the Mishna that exempts a gentile’s rolling from ḥalla is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, who also exempt grain through a gentile’s completion of its processing.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava,

who had said that according to the one who holds that a gentile’s completion of the processing does not exempt, the same applies in the case of ḥalla, where his rolling does not exempt, from the following beraita:

A gentile

who separated

a sheep for the redemption of

his firstborn donkey,

although he is not subject to this law,

and ḥalla

[or who separated ḥalla],

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 a gentile’s rolling exempts the dough,

and

the

firstborn donkey may be shorn and worked,

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

The implication is:

but his teruma

the gentile’s

is forbidden,

because a gentile’s completion of the processing does not exempt.

And

this presents a difficulty to Rava:

but this tanna, who says that a gentile’s completion of the processing does not exempt,

since he holds that the gentile’s teruma is valid, nevertheless

a gentile’s rolling exempts, unlike Rava, who said that the one who holds that a gentile’s completion of the processing does not exempt also holds that his rolling does not exempt!

And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava

from the following beraita:

The ḥalla of a gentile in the Land of Israel

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

and his teruma outside the Land of Israel

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

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 forbidden,

meaning that if this teruma became mixed with ordinary produce, the mixture is not forbidden because of the teruma mixed into it, since his teruma itself is not teruma at all.

The implication is that specifically his teruma outside the Land of Israel is not valid, since even in the case of a Jew it is only rabbinic ;

but his teruma

of a gentile

in the Land of Israel is forbidden,

in itself,

and

it also

renders a mixture forbidden,

for it renders the entire mixture forbidden if it became mixed with ordinary produce.

And this presents a difficulty to Rava:

but this tanna, who says that a gentile’s completion of the processing does not exempt,

as is evident from the fact that his teruma in the Land of Israel renders a mixture forbidden, nevertheless

a gentile’s rolling exempts.

This is unlike Rava!

And we answer: In fact, according to this tanna, just as a gentile’s rolling exempts, so too a gentile’s completion of the processing exempts, in accordance with Rava’s statement. And as for the difficulty you raised—if so, why is his teruma in the Land of Israel forbidden?—it is no difficulty, because its prohibition is only

rabbinic.

The Sages rendered a gentile’s produce liable for teruma as

a decree because of purse-holders

[the wealthy], since there is concern that they may manipulate matters by selling their produce to a gentile, having the gentile complete its processing, and then purchasing it back from him, thereby exempting themselves from teruma.