Episode Transcript
[00:00:02] We learned in the previous Mishnah that if two small pieces of dough which individually are too small to be obligated in Challah, but if they are combined, then they are big enough. So if those two are touching and stuck together, such that if you take away one of the pieces of dough, it will take away part of the other piece of dough as well. So in that case, as long as both pieces of dough are the same type of dough made from the same type of flower, then they do combine and they will be obligated in Challah. And the truth is, if two pieces of dough are mixed together totally and they're made literally into one piece of dough, then even if they're not the same type of flour, they would still become obligated, because now it's considered one piece of dough totally. But if they're not quite mixed together, they're just touching and stuck to each other. So then they only combine if they are the same type of flour. Now, we're going to see in this Mishnah that when we say the same type of flour, it doesn't mean that both pieces of dough have to be made from wheat, for example, rather, they have to be made from the similar type of grain. Now, out of the five primary grains, wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye, the two main ones are wheat and barley. Oats and rye are just different types of barley. They have very similar characteristics to barley. And spelt has similar characteristics to both barley and wheat. So this will give rise to our mishnah is or minb minnow, what is considered the same type. Now, in general, minb minoi usually refers to two things which are exactly the same, for example, olives and olives. In this case, specifically, the term includes even things which are similar. So the Mishnah tells us tofasimacol wheat doesn't combine with any of the other primary grains, eloimakusmin, except for spelt, because spelt is similar to wheat, but the other three primary grains are not similar, has tofasmakal. On the other hand, barley does combine with all of the grains, namely spelt otunrai, but not chutzpin achitim, except for wheat, because wheat and barley are different. Now, according to the Tanakama, because wheat and barley are considered the main two grains, and the rest are just offshoots of those types of grains. So for two different types to combine, one of those types has to be wheat or barley. But if, for example, oats and rye are mixed together, since they are both anyway sort of secondary Grains they wouldn't combine together, however, says the rest of the types of grain, namely spelt oat and rye mitz, to say they would join together because although they may be secondary offshoots of wheat and barley, they nevertheless share the same, very similar characteristics. And because of that, according to, they can combine and they would be obligated in challah if their combined size is at least a cover and a quarter. Mr. Gimel, what happens if you have two of the same types of dough? Again, each one individually is too small to be obligated, but this time, instead of being stuck to each other, there's another piece of dough in between them. So you've got three pieces of dough next to each other, and each one is stuck to the next one. The question is, do the two outer pieces of dough combine to become obligated in challah? Says the Mishnah, two pieces of dough which are each the volume of one kav. So individually, they're too small to be obligated in challah, the kav erez, and there's a kav piece of bread, and that bread is made out of rice, a kav truma, or there's a piece of bread which is truma, and its volume is a kav. But ensign, the middle of these two pieces of dough, and the truth is, according to many, the middle piece of dough can be any size. The point is, there's something in the middle, and the thing in the middle is totally exempt from challah. Truma dough or rice dough has never got an obligation of challah. So. So because of that, the two outer pieces of dough cannot combine because there's something in the way. However, if there's a piece of bread in the middle from which challah was taken in the past. So, for example, let's say there was a barley piece of dough, so it was obligated in challah, and challah was separated already from that piece of dough. So in that case, mitztarfin, the two outer pieces of dough do combine to become obligated in challah, the reason being that there's not a blockage in the middle of them. Rather, there's something shekivayan shayiba challah, the thing in the middle is already obligated in challah, which means that it does allow the two other pieces of bread to combine when it comes to rice bread or trimmer bread dough. So they never had an obligation of challah. They have nothing to do with challah, so they can't have the power to combine two other pieces of dough to be obligated in challah. However, when it comes to a piece of dough which itself was obligated in challah, the that does have the power to combine two other pieces of dough which are stuck to that piece of dough to combine those two to be obligated them is the one is not allowed to separate tithes or separate from produce or dough which grew this year on behalf of produce or dough which grew in a previous year. The question of our mission is whether two pieces of dough from different years can combine to be obligated in dough which comes from the new year's produce, and a kav of dough which comes from old produce from a previous year. Chez nosh kuzabazer, which literally bite each other. And it refers to when they get stuck together, such that if you would pull away one of the pieces of dough, it would take with it some of the other piece of dough. And we're talking about where both pieces of dough were the same species. So, for example, let's imagine they were both wheat. They both came from wheat flour. But the question is, can they combine? So according to Rabi Shmuel, they can. And Rabi Shmuel learns this from a Kavacheimer. Says Abu Ishmael, if wheat and spelt, which in general are considered to be two separate species, for example, one is not allowed to plant two different species together. And the Mishling Kilayim tells us that one example of this would be to plant a wheat seed and a spelt seed together. That would be forbidden. So we see that wheat and spelt are generally considered to be two separate species. And yet we learned a couple of ish nights ago that if a piece of wheat dough and a piece of spelt dough get stuck to each other, they do combine to become obligated in challah. So if wheat and spelt, which are two different species, can combine, then wheat of this year and wheat of last year, all the more so they should be able to combine because they're the same species. And the truth is, all opinions at Yao Mishnah agree to this kavicheima. And therefore mid the oraisa, the two pieces of dough should combine. And so says you should separate the challah from the middle part where the two pieces of dough connect, and that way it'll take part of the new dough and part of the old dough, because you can't separate challah from one on behalf of the other because they're from different years. However, they do combine to become obligated in Challah. And therefore you should take part of that dough and part of that dough and designate that as now the agree with this k. However, the are concerned that if somebody sees this person separating challah from the middle of these two pieces of dough, they might come to think that it's permitted to separate challah from dough which grew in this year on behalf of produce or dough which grew in another year. So to prevent people coming to that conclusion, forbids you to separate challah in that way. So how should you do it? According to the chachom, you have to make it obvious that you are not separating from dove one year on behalf of dove another year. And therefore, the solution, according to the chachomem, is to get another two pieces of dough, one which is from this year's produce and another one which is from a previous year's produce. You connect those two to these two pieces. So now there'll be two carve of this year's produce and two car of last year's produce. And then you'll separate only from these new pieces of dough. They'll separate khalah from the new one on behalf of the new one and from the old one on behalf of the old one. And that way it's clear that you are only separating the challah from a particular year on behalf of bread of the same year. Now, the next mission and a half, discuss a case where hana kav somebody separated from dough which was only a kav size. So it's smaller than the COVID and a quarter, which it needs to be to be obligated in.
[00:07:40] And so the way you're going to understand the Mishnah is that everybody agrees that at that stage it's not yet considered challah because it's not obligated in the challah. There is no obligation of challah. And so if you separate challah, it's not a valid challah. Right now the question is, what happens if the dough then increases in size, Somebody adds dough to that small piece of dough such that now it is the minimum size. The question is, do they have to separate challah again, or is the challah which they separated the first time when it was exempt, does that cover the dough now that it is obligated? So says the original obligation is valid, and therefore you do not need to separate khalah again? And this is because assumes that since you separated challah when it was smaller than the minimal size, and then you added dough to the small piece of dough, clearly when you separate the challah at the beginning Your intention was that it should be valid when the dough is big enough, because we assume that you knew and you planned to add to the dough. So therefore, when you separated challah originally, your intention was that it should be valid when the dough is big enough, however, is not challah, and you'll have to separate challah again, because since you didn't actually make that condition and you didn't state that it should be valid for when you increase the dough, so we can't assume that that was your intention, and therefore the original challah is not valid, and you will now have to separate challah. Once again, Mishneh brings a consequence of the machleikas of tune by Akiva and the Chachamim, and it will note something fascinating about the consequence. Shnei kabim, if you have two individual pieces of dough which are each the volume of a kav, shenikla, chalos, vayefnei, atzmay, and challah was separated from each one by itself. So again, they weren't yet obligated in challah, but somebody decided to separate challah from both of them individually. And then Chozar Vaso and Issa Akhas, he went back and made them all into one big piece of dough, which is now the volume of 2kav, or slightly less because he took some challah away. But it's definitely big enough to be obligated in challah. But if you think about it, it will depend on whether the original challah was valid. Now, in the previous missionary, Akiva said that the challah which you separate from just one kav, which is exempt at the moment, is valid, and you won't have to separate it again later. And therefore, over here, now that you've joined the two pieces of dough together, it is big enough to be obligated. But according to Akiva, the original challah was valid, so now exempts you from separating challah again because the original two challahs which were separated were valid. On the other hand, the chachom held in the previous Mishnah that the original designation of challah is not valid, which means that now that you've put them together and it is big enough to be obligated, you cannot rely on the original challah. And so the chachom, the chaivim, the chachom obligate you to separate challah again now, and the Mishnah notes that nimtsa humrai kulai, it emerges that Riva's stringency in the previous Mishnah ends up being a leniency in this Mishnah. In the previous Mishnah, Kiva said that it is, and that's a stringency, because you have to now treat that as you have to give it to a Cohen. But that results in a leniency, namely, that if the dough increases in size later on, you will not need to separate Khalah again. So that is the leniency which derives from his stringency.
