(a)The Mishnah discusses two doughs, each comprising a Kav, which touch. In which case will they not combine (to be Chayav Chalah), even assuming they ...
1. ... are of the same kind?
2. ... belong to the same woman?
(b)Why, in the former case, do the two not combine ...
1. ... (in this case, even though they would, if they belonged to the same woman)?
2. ... even if they have been kneaded together?
(c)In which respect is this Mishnah not Halachah?
1)
(a)The Mishnah discusses two doughs, each comprising a Kav, which touch. They will not combine (to be Chayav Chalah), even assuming they ...
1. ... are of the same kind - if they belong to two women.
2. ... belong to the same woman - if they are of two different kinds of grain (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(b)In the former case, the two do not combine ...
1. ... (even though they would, if they belonged to the same woman) - because women are generally particular that they should not combine.
2. ... even if they have been kneaded together - because they are nevertheless destined to be separated.
(c)This Mishnah is not Halachah - in that it requires two Kabin to be Chayav Chalah (like Beis Hillel), whereas we rule that one and a quarter Kabin will suffice.
Mishnah 2
2)
(a)Which of the five species of grain will combine with a ...
1. ... wheat dough (to make up the Shi'ur that is Chayav Chalah)?
2. ... barley dough?
(b)What does R. Yochanan ben Nuri say about doughs of spelt, rye and oats ?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
2)
(a)A dough made of ...
1. ... spelt will combine with a wheat dough (to make up the Shi'ur that is Chayav Chalah [see beginning of Masechta]).
2. ... spelt, rye or oats will combine with a barley dough.
(b)R. Yochanan ben Nuri maintains - that doughs of spelt, rye and oats will combine too.
(c)The Halachah is - like R. Yochanan ben Nuri.
Mishnah 3
3)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about two independent Kabin of dough (of wheat, say), which are joined by ...
1. ... a rice dough (in the middle which sticks to them?
2. ... a Terumah dough?
3. ... a wheat dough whose Chalah has already been taken?
(b)What is the reason for the latter Halachah?
3)
(a)The Mishnah rules that two independent Kabin of dough (of wheat, say), which are joined by ...
1. ... a rice dough (in the middle sticking to them - do not combine. Neither will they combine by means of ...
2. ... a Terumah dough (see Tos. Yom-Tov), since neither of the joining doughs are subject to Chalah.
3. ... a wheat dough whose Chalah has already been taken - do combine ...
(b)... because the wheat dough was once Chayav Chalah.
Mishnah 4
4)
(a)Is one permitted to separate from a dough made from this year's crops to cover a dough made from last year's crops, or vice-versa?
(b)What does R. Yishmael therefore suggest one does if one has two such doughs, each comprising one Kav that stuck together?
(c)What do the Chachamim say?
(d)Why is that?
(e)Like whom is the Halachah?
4)
(a)It is forbidden to separate from a dough made from this year's crops to cover a dough made from last year's crops, or vice-versa.
(b)R. Yishmael therefore suggests that in the event that one has two such doughs, each comprising one Kav that stuck together - one takes Chalah from the middle (half from each dough).
(c)The Chachamim forbid it ...
(d)... because then people will think that one is permitted to take Chalah from a dough made on one year's crops on that of another year.
(e)The Halachah is like the Chachamim.
5)
(a)If someone takes Chalah from a Kav, his Chalah is valid, according to R. Akiva. On what condition does he say this?
(b)What do the Chachamim say?
(c)Likw whom is the Halachah?
5)
(a), if someone takes Chalah from a Kav, his Chalah is valid, according to R. Akiva - provided he subsequently makes up the Shi'ur that is Chayav Chalah (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)The Chachamim - declare his Chalah invalid.
(c)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
Mishnah 5
6)
(a)And what do R. Akiva and the Chachamim respectively, say if the owner took Chalah from each of the two Kabin and then combined them?
(b)What does the Tana mean when it says that 'his Chumra turns out to be a Kula'?
6)
(a)If the owner took Chalah from each of the two Kabin and then combined them - R. Akiva holds that he does not need to take Chalah again; the Chachamim hold that he does.
(b)When the Tana says that 'his Chumra turns out to be a Kula', he means that - precisely because Rebbi Akiva says in the previous Mishnah that it is Chalah, he holds Patur in the latter case.
Mishnah 6
7)
(a)What does the Mishnah permit someone who intends to knead a number of doughs from Tamei D'mai, to do?
(b)For how long is he permitted to use the Tahor dough?
(c)Why does the Tana permit taking Chalah from a Tahor dough to cover Tamei ones?
(d)Do the doughs need to be min ha'Mukaf (next to each other) whilst the Chalah is being taken?
(e)Which other concession do the Chachamim make in this case?
7)
(a)The Mishnah permits someone who intends to knead a number of doughs from D'mai that has become Tamei - to designate one Tahor dough from which Chalah has not yet been taken, from which he will separate Chalah for each Tamei dough of D'mai that he kneads.
(b)He is permitted to continue using the Tahor dough - until it 'goes off'.
(c)The Tana permits taking Chalah from a Tahor dough to cover Tamei ones - because it is one of the concessions that they made with regard to D'mai (which is no more than a weak de'Rabbanan).
(d)Neither do the doughs need to be min ha'Mukaf (next to each other) whilst the Chalah is being taken.
(e)Furthermore, they permitted taking from bad quality grain to cover good quality grain.
8)
(a)What is the case? How does someone come to have Chalah of D'mai in his possession?
(b)How come that he is taking Chalah without having separated the required Ma'asros?
8)
(a)The Tana is speaking about - someone who purchased (not dough [see Tos. Yom-Tov] but) grain from an Am ha'Aretz (see also Tiferes Yisrael).
(b)He is taking Chalah althoughy he did not separate the required Ma'asros - because he intends to feed poor people or guests (which is permitted).
Mishnah 7
9)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses Jews who are working as Arisim in Syria. On what basis does R. Eliezer declare their fruit subject to Ma'asros and Shevi'is?
(b)What does Raban Gamliel say?
(c)Why is that? Under which circumstances will he concede to R. Eliezer?
9)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses Jews who are working as Arisim in Syria. R. Eliezer declares their fruit subject to Ma'asros and Shevi'is - because in his opinion, the Chachamim gave Syria the Din of Eretz Yisrael regarding these two areas of Halachah.
(b)According to Raban Gamliel rules that - he is Patur ...
(c)... because in his opinion - they only gave Syria the Din of Eretz Yisrael with regard to land that is owned by a Yisrael exclusively.
10)
(a)What does Raban Gamliel mean when he requires separating two Chalahs in Syria?
(b)What is the reason for the Chalah that is ...
1. ... burned?
2. ... given to the Kohen?
(c)Why does R. Eliezer then say that one (regular) Chalah will suffice?
(d)What is the problem with the initial ruling like both leniencies (exempting the Arisin in Syria from Ma'asros [like Raban Gamliel] and separating only one Chalah [like R. Eliezer])?
(e)What is the final ruling?
10)
(a)When Raban Gamliel requires separating two Chalahs in Syria - he means that - one Chalah must be burned, the other, given to a Kohen.
(b)One Chalah ...
1. ... must be burned, because the Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on the earth of Syria, like they did on other countries outside Eretz Yisrael, and Chalah Teme'ah must be burned.
2. ... is given to a Kohen - so that the basic Din of Chalah is not forgotten.
(c)R. Eliezer nevertheless says that one (regular) Chalah will suffice - because, as we just explained, they gave Syria the Din of Eretz Yisrael completely, in which case, the Chalah does not become Tamei and may be given to a Kohen.
(d)The problem with the initial ruling (exempting the Arisin in Syria from Ma'asros [like Raban Gamliel] and separating only one Chalah [like R. Eliezer])lies - in the principle that someone who follows the two leniencies of two conflicting opinions is called a Rasha.
(e)The final ruling is - like Raban Gamliel in both regards.
Mishnah 8
11)
(a)Raban Gamliel lists three areas regarding Chalah. What did he say about 'from Eretz Yisrael until K'ziv (also known as Achziv)'.
(b)Where is K'ziv? What is the significance of K'ziv in this regard?
(c)The second area is from K'ziv until the River (Shichar [Tiferes Yisrael]) and until Amanah. In which direction of K'ziv are these two situated?
(d)What status do they have?
(e)Why do they not automatically have the status of Eretz Yisrael, seeing as the Olei Mitzrayim captured them?
11)
(a)Raban Gamliel lists three areas regarding Chalah. 'From Eretz Yisrael until K'ziv (known as Achziv)' he says - requires only one Chalah to be taken.
(b)K'ziv - which is north of Acco, is the northernmost city in Eretz Yisrael captured by the Olei Bavel and sanctified as part of Eretz Yisrael.
(c)The second area is from K'ziv until the River (Shichar, see Tiferes Yisrael) in the east - and Amanah in the west ...
(d)... which were captured by the Olei Mitzrayim, but not by the Olei Bavel (see also Tiferes Yisrael).
(e)They do not automatically have the status of Eretz Yisrael, in spite of the fact that the Olei Mitzrayim captured them - because the Tana holds that the first Kedushah was not permanent (i.e. it came to an end with the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash).
12)
(a)Why must the first of the two Chalos that the owner separates be burned?
(b)Why did the Chachamim institute the second Chalah must be eaten? What might people have thought if they hadn't?
(c)Why is that?
(d)So what does giving the second Chalah achieve?
12)
(a)The first of the two Chalos that the owner takes must be burned - because since it was not captured by the Olei Bavel, it is subject to Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim.
(b)The Chachamim nevertheless instituted a second Chalah (see Tos-Yom-Tov) that must be eaten - because people might otherwise accuse them of burning Tahor Chalah ...
(c)... seeing as (due to the fact that the Olei Mitzrayim had conquered it) it was not considered to be totally Eretz ha'Amim either (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The second Chalah - will cause them to realize the facts, or at least it will lead them to ask for an explanation.
13)
(a)The first of the above Chalos requires a Shi'ur. What is the Shi'ur?
(b)Why does the first of the above Chalos require a Shi'ur Chalah, but not the second?
(c)Why does the area from the River Shichar till Amanah and beyond have the status of Chutz la'Aretz?
13)
(a)The first of the above Chalos requires a Shi'ur - a twenty-fourth for a private person and a forty-eighth (for a baker [see Tos. Yom-Tov and Tiferes Yisrael).
(b)The first of the above Chalos requires a Shi'ur Chalah - because since the land was once Kadosh, it appears to be d'Oraysa; whereas the second Chalah does not - since it is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(c)The area from the River Shichar till Amanah and beyond has the status of Chutz la'Aretz - since it was never conquered, even by the Olei Mitzrayim.
14)
(a)Seeing as the third area, like the second, requires separating two Chalos, what is the basic difference between the two?
(b)Assuming that the Chalah shel Or is the main one, what is the reason for the second Chalah?
(c)Then why did the Chachamim ascribe a Shi'ur to it rather than to the Chalah shel Or?
14)
(a)The third area, like the second, requires separating two Chalos, with the difference - that it is the Chalas ha'Or that does not have a Shi'ur, and the Chalah that is given to the Kohen that does (one forty-eighth).
(b)The Chalah shel Or is the main one, and the reason for the second Chalah is - only so that they should not forget the Din of giving Chalah to the Kohen.
(c)And the reason the Chachamim ascribed a Shi'ur to it rather than to the Chalah shel Or is - because since they are both de'Rabbanan, it is more logical for the larger amount to be eaten rather than burned.
15)
(a)The Chalah shel Or however, may be eaten by a Kohen T'vul Yom. What is the definition of a T'vul-Yom in this case?
(b)What is the reason for this leniency? To whom did the Chachamim confine the Isur of eating Chalas Chutz la'Aretz?
(c)In that case, what is the significance of the Chalas ha'Or mentioned by the Tana?
(d)And what sort of Kohen eats the second Chalah?
15)
(a)The Chalah shel Or however, may be eaten by a Kohen T'vul Yom - which is defined as a Ba'al Keri who has Toveled.
(b)The reason for this leniency is - because the Chachamim confined the Isur of eating Chalas Chutz la'Aretz to a Kohen who emitted Tum'ah from his body (i.e. a Ba'al Keri who has not Toveled [see Tos. Yom-Tov cited shortly]).
(c)The Chalas ha'Or mentioned in our Mishnah - only applies where there is no 'T'vul-Yom' or Katan who never saw Tum'ah in the first place.
(d)Whereas the second Chalah may be eaten - even by a Kohen Ba'al-Keri who has not Toveled.
16)
(a)Rebbi Yossi is more lenient than the Tana Kama, What doe he say? Like whom is the Halachah?
(b)The Mishnah continues 'va'Asurah le'Zavim u'le'Zavos'. Which two other Tum'os does the Tana add to the list?
(c)Who is the author of this ruling?
(d)Which additional leniency does the Tana add regarding ...
1. ... together with whom it may be eaten?
2. ... which Kohen one may give it?
(e)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim " ... Laseis M'nas ha'Kohanim ve'ha'Levi'im lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hash-m"?
16)
(a)Rebbi Yossi is more lenient than the Tana Kama in that - the Kohen does not need to have Toveled (though the Halachah is not like him).
(c)The author of this ruling is - the Tana Kama (of Rebbi Yossi [see previous Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(d)The Tana adds that ...
1. ... it may be eaten - at the same table by which a Zar is eating (which a Kohen eating regular Chalah and Terumah may not do).
2. ... one may give it to a Kohen Talmid-Chacham who does not eat his Chulin be'Taharah (but not to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz [though the Rambam permits that too]).
(e)We learn from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim " ... Laseis M'nas ha'Kohanim ve'ha'Levi'im lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hash-m" - that one is obligated to give one's Terumos and Ma'asros to a Kohen Talmid-Chacham.
Mishnah 9
17)
(a)The Mishnah permits giving ...
1. ... Charamim, Bechoros, Pidyon ha'Ben and Pidyon Peter Chamor to any Kohen. What sort of Kohen does this come to include?
(b)What does the Tana rule with regard to ...
1. ... Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah, Reishis ha'Gez and Shemen S'reifah?
2. ... Kodshei Hamikdash and Bikurim?
(c)What are 'Charamim' and 'Shemen S'reifah' respectively?
(d)Why does the Tana present 'Bechoros' in the plural?
17)
(a)The Mishnah permits giving ...
1. ... Charamim, Bechoros, Pidyon ha'Ben and Pidyon Peter Chamor to any Kohen - even to a Kohen who is not a Chaver (someone who has undertaken to eat his Chulin be'Taharah [but not to a Kohen Am-ha'Aretz [see Tiferes Yisrael 39]).
(b)The Tana includes ...
1. ... Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah, Reishis ha'Gez and Shemen S'reifah in his list, as well as ...
2. ... Kodshei Hamikdash and Bikurim.
(c)'Charamim' are - Kodshim that became holy by declaring 'Nechasai Muchramim la'Hashem' and that are given to the Kohanim. Whereas 'Shemen Sereifah' is - Tamei Terumah oil that has to be burned (but from which the Kohen may benefit in the process).
(d)The Tana presents 'Bechoros' in the plural - because there are two kinds of B'chor Beheimah, a B'chor Tam (that is brought as a Korban) and a B'chor Ba'al-Mum, that the Kohen may eat even when he is Tamei.
18)
(a)Why does the Mishnah omit Terumah, T'rumas Ma'aser and Chalah?
(b)What is the reason for this distinction?
18)
(a)The Mishnah omits Terumah, T'rumas Ma'aser and Chalah - because it is indeed forbidden to give a Kohen who is not a Chaver Kodshei ha'Gevul (that are eaten outside Yerushalayim) which may be not eaten be'Tum'ah (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(b)The reason for this distinction is - because one can be certain that the Kohanim who enter the Beis-Hamikdash to eat Kodshei Mizbe'ach and to receive Bikurim, will make sure to Tovel first.
19)
(a)Why did Rebbi Yehudah add Bikurim to this list?
(b)R. Akiva includes Karshinei Terumah (horse-beans, which is a type of animal fodder and is not considered a food) in the earlier list. What do the Chachamim say?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)What is the Halachah regarding ...
1. ... Bikurim?
2. ... Karshinei Terumah?
19)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah adds Bikurim to this list - because, although it is brought to the Beis-Hamikdash, since the Kohanim do not perform any Avodah with it, they do not have a Chazakah of having Toveled.
(b)R. Akiva includes Karshinei Terumah (horse-beans, which is a type of animal fodder) in the earlier list. According to the Chachamim - Karshinei Terumah is no different than regular Terumah.
(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether it is edible (the Chachamim [because people eat it when there is a shortage of food]), or not (R. Akiva).
(d)The Halachah regarding ...
1. ... Bikurim - is like the Chachamim of R. Yehudah.
2. ... Karshinei Terumah is - like the Chachamim of R. Akiva.
Mishnah 10
20)
(a)What did Nitai Ish Tako'a do with the Chalos that he brought from Beitar to Eretz Yisrael? Where was Beitar?
(b)Why could they not be ...
1. ... eaten?
2. ... burned immediately?
3. ... taken back to Chutz la'Aretz?
(c)What happened to ...
1. ... the Chalos that the men of Alexandria brought to Eretz Yisrael?
2. ... the Bikurim that the men of Tzevu'im brought to the Beis-Hamikdash before Shavu'os?
(d)Why was that?
20)
(a)Nitai Ish Tako'a took the Chalos that he brought from Beitar (in Chutz la'Aretz [see Tos. Yom-Tov DH 've'Lo Kiblu') to Eretz Yisrael and burned them on Erev Pesach.
(b)They could not be ...
1. ... eaten - because having come from Chutz la'Aretz, they were Tamei.
2. ... burned immediately - because since this is not something that everybody was aware of (see Tos. Yom-Tov), ythe Chachamim were afraid that people would say that they saw Terumah Tehorah being burned.
3. ... taken back to Chutz la'Aretz - so that people should not say that they saw Terumah being taken to Chutz la'Aretz.
(c)The ...
1. ... Chalos that the men of Alexandria brought to Eretz Yisrael - were treated in the same way as those that Nitai Ish Tako'a brought from Beitar.
2. ... Bikurim that the men of Tzevu'im brought to the Beis-Hamikdash before Shavu'os - were sent back ...
(d)... due to the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Chag ha'Katzir Bikurei Ma'asecha asher Tizra ba'Sadeh - which teaches us that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (referred to here as 'Bikurei Ma'asecha') permits the new fruit to be brought to the Beis-Hamikdash (but not earlier [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
Mishnah 11
21)
(a)What happened with the Bechoros that ben Antinus brought from Bavel to the Beis-Hamikdash?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Achalta lifnei Hash-m ... Ma'asar Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekorcha ... "?
(c)Why did they turn Yosef ha'Kohen back when he brought ...
1. ... ready-made wine to the Beis-Hamikdash as Bikurim?
2. ... his young sons to Yerushalayim to bring Pesach Sheini on the fourteenth of Iyar?
(d)Why did they not accept them anyway, since there is no harm in bringing a voluntary Shelamim?
21)
(a)The Kohanim rejected the Bechoros that ben Antinus brought from Bavel to the Beis-Hamikdash (see Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(b)... due to the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Achalta lifnei Hash-m ... Ma'asar Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekorcha ... " - from which we learn that Bechoros can only be brought from the same place as Ma'aser Dagan (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(c)They turned Yosef ha'Kohen back when he brought ...
1. ... ready-made wine to the Beis-Hamikdash as Bikurim - because when he picked the first grapes, he did so with the intention of bringing them as grapes (see Tos. Yom-Tov). Had he had in mind to bring them as wine, it would have been permitted to do so (as we learned in T'rumos with regard to wine and oil).
2. ... his young sons to Yerushalayim to bring Pesach Sheini on the fourteenth of Iyar - because whereas young children are Chayav to perform the Mitzvah of Re'iyah on Yom-Tov and to bring the Korban Pesach when they go, they are Patur from Pesach Sheini.
(d)Even though there is no harm in bringing a voluntary Shelamim - they nevertheless turned Yosef ha'Kohen back - in order not to set a precedent, because they were afraid that people would think that it is obligatory.
22)
(a)Why did the Kohanim accept the Bikurim that Ariston brought from Apamya? Where is Apamya?
(b)What did the Chachamim say about someone who purchases something in Syria? What does 'Parvar Yerushalayim' mean?
(c)What is the source of the word 'Parvar'?
(d)Why would they not have accepted Terumah, had he brought *that* from Syria (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
22)
(a)The Kohanim accepted the Bikurim that Ariston brought from Apamya - in Syria, because the Chachamim gave Syria the Din of Eretz Yisrael in various regards (as we already learned earlier).
(b)The Chachamim declared that someone who purchases something in Syria - it is as if he had purchased it in the fields and villages of 'Parvar' (i.e. the open spaces and villages surounding Yerushalayim').
(c)'Parva'ha is Unklus' translation of "Migrashei" (the open spaces of ... ).
(d)They would not however, have accepted Terumah, had he brought that from Syria - because they were afraid that if they permitted the Terumah of Syria to be brought to Eretz Yisrael, the Kohanim of Eretz Yisrael would travel to Syria for it (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
