Pesachim 37b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Lest you say, since it is written

among the thanksgiving-offering loaves,

“And he shall offer from it ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

one from each offering

as a donation to the Lord.” [For he brings four kinds of loaves, ten of each kind. And from each kind he gives one to the koen, while the rest are eaten by the owners]. And we derive:

“one”—

that

the loaf must be whole, and

he may not take a piece

and give it!

And

I might have said that

here

it is speaking of a loaf found in the state of hinnah, since it was not baked fully,

it is considered as though it were split. It teaches us

Rava that it is not like a piece.

He raises an objection:

We learned:

The meisa [

flour that was scalded in boiling water]—

Beit Shammai exempt it

from challa.

And Beit Hillel obligate it

in challa.

The halita—

Beit Shammai obligate it

in challa.

And Beit Hillel exempt it

from it.

Which is the “meisa,” and which is the “halita”?

The “meisa”

is made by first placing boiling water, and afterward putting the

flour upon

the

scalding water [

the boiling water]. Whereas

the “halita”

is made by first putting in the flour, and afterward pouring the scalding water over the flour.

Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei says in the name of his father: Both this and that—

both the meisa and the halita, their law is

to exempt

from challa! Since the flour was cooked before its baking, it is no longer called bread, even if afterward it was baked in an oven.

And

there are those who

say it

in his name: Both this and that, their law is

to

become subject to the

obligation

of challa! And although the flour was cooked in boiling water, it returns to being considered “bread” after it is baked [even if it was made in a pan].

Tosafot.

And the Sages say: Both this

the meisa,

and this

the halita—if in the end he

made them

baked them

in a pan,

it is

exempt

from challa. And if in the end he

made them

baked them

in an oven,

it is

obligated

in challa.

And

we examine it: Why does

the first tanna distinguish, according to the view of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, between halita and meisa?

between halita and meisa?

What is different about meisa, and what is different about halita?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, and likewise Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say

so said Rabbi

Joshua ben Levi:

In truth, there is no difference between meisa and halita, and their law is one. And

just as the dispute

of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

in this one, so is the dispute in that one! And the one who exempts in halita exempts in meisa, while the one who obligates obligates in both. And the fact that it teaches at the beginning, Beit Shammai exempt in meisa and Beit Hillel obligate, while at the end [with regard to halita] it teaches the reverse, is not the case that one tanna taught them.

And the one who taught the beginning did not teach the end.

And it is broken [

the beginning and the end were never taught according to one method]. Rather,

the one who taught

the first part

did not teach

the latter part

this. And the tanna of the first part holds that Beit Shammai exempt both in halita and in meisa, while Beit Hillel obligate; and the tanna of the latter part holds that the positions are reversed.

And we conclude the question:

In any event, it teaches: “And the Sages say: Both this and that—

if he made them in a pan, he is exempt.

If he made them

in an oven, he is obligated!”

Evidently, work done in a pan is not called bread. And

a refutation of

the opinion of

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who obligates in a pan.

And we explain:

And we explain:

Rabbi Yoḥanan can say to you,

the dispute

is a dispute of tannaim!

For it was taught: Could it be that meisa and haluta are obligated in challa?

The verse says

concerning it: “When you eat from

bread

of the land”! And these are not called “bread.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not

called

“bread”

except

a thing

baked in an oven!

Therefore, meisa and haluta are not bread, and they exempt from challa.

And we examine it:

Rabbi Yehuda is identical with the first tanna!

For both of them exempt in meisa and haluta.

Rather, is it not that work done in a pan is what separates them?

For

the first tanna

exempts only in meisa and haluta, since they were cooked in boiling water before their kneading and are not bread. But

he holds that

work done in a pan, which was baked only in a pan standing over the fire, is similar to something baked in an oven, and

which was baked only in a pan placed on the fire, is comparable to bread baked in an oven, and

they are obligated.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that even though they were not cooked, but were made

as work done in a pan,

they are

exempt.

And the Sages in the earlier beraita also hold like Rabbi Yehuda. But Rabbi Yoḥanan, who exempts for work done in a pan, holds like the first tanna.

And we reject this:

No,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda do not disagree in this manner. Rather,

everyone

holds that

work done in a pan is exempt.

And here

they disagree in a case

such as when

he made it as work done in a pan, and afterward

returned and baked it in an oven.

And in this

they disagree. For the first tanna holds: Since he returned and baked it in an oven,

“bread”

is what we call it.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: There is no bread except

a thing

baked

in an oven from the outset.

And

this work done in a pan,

since from the outset it was not baked in an oven

but in a pan,

it is not bread!

And afterward, it does not help it to be considered bread, even by returning and baking it in an oven.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,

that baking afterward does not help it? Because of

it is written, “And ten women shall bake your bread in one oven.”

A thing baked in one oven

alone

is called bread. But one

that

is not baked in one oven

alone, but is baked both in a pan and in an oven,

is not

it

called bread!

Rabba and Rav Yosef were sitting behind Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Zeira was sitting before Ulla. Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Ask Ulla,

if he

stuck

the bread inside the pan

from the inside, and heated

the pan

from the outside

with fire,

what

is the law of the bread with regard to the obligation of challa?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

What shall I say to him

to Ulla? And what is there for me to ask him about this matter?

For if I say

to him this question, surely he will

say [

he will say]

to me: What is it [

this is]

work done in a pan,

in which Rabbi Yoḥanan and Resh Lakish disagree.

And at that same gathering

Rav Yosef said to Rabbi Zeira: Ask Ulla,

if he

stuck

the bread in a pan

from the inside, and a torch was opposite it [

opposite the bread] from above, and the heat of the fire blazed inside the pan and hastened its baking,

what

is the law of this bread concerning the obligation of challa?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

What shall I say to him

to Ulla? For there is no room for a question in this. For

if I say to him

this question, surely he will

say to me:

This too is work done in a pan. For

most poor people do so

when doing work in a pan! Since they do not have many pieces of wood, they hasten the baking by means of the torch. And this too is included in the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Resh Lakish.

We learned in Kiddushin: If one betroths a woman with second tithe, he has not betrothed her—these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: He has betrothed her! And it is explained there that Rabbi Meir holds that second tithe is the property of the Most High, and is not the property of the owners. Therefore, he cannot betroth her with it. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that second tithe is ordinary property! For the owner of the produce from which the tithe was separated is considered the owner even of the tithe.

Rav Asi said: Dough of second tithe—

according to the words of Rabbi Meir,

it is

exempt from challa!

Since the dough is not his, but belongs to the Most High. And the dough of the Most High is exempt from challa, as we will derive shortly.

And according to the

words of the Sages, it is

it is

obligated

in challa! For it is ordinary property.