ARE MA'ASER AND HEKDESH OBLIGATED IN CHALAH? (Yerushalmi Chalah Perek 1 Halachah 3 Daf 6a)
îò"ù åä÷ãù ùðôãå:
(Mishnah): Ma'aser Sheni or Hekdesh that was redeemed.
øáé æòéøà øáé éåñé øáé çîà áø òå÷áà (øáé) [ö"ì åøáé - ôðé îùä] äìì áï äìéñ îèà áä áùí øáé éåãä ãîï äãà îòùø ùðé ùä÷ãéîå áùéáìéï ôèåø îúøåîä âãåìä.
Inference (R. Ze'ira citing R. Yosi citing R. Chama bar Ukva, and R. Hillel ben Halis leaned to say in the name of R. Yehudah): From here, we learn that if [one separated] Ma'aser Sheni from sheaves (before Miru'ach), it is exempt from Terumah Gedolah. (The Ma'aser Sheni is obligated in Chalah and exempt from Ma'aseros. If it were not exempt from Terumah Gedolah, it would be liable in Ma'aser Rishon! - R. ISAR ZALMAN MELTZAR.)
øáé éåðä áòé [ö"ì ÷åîé øáé æòéøà - ùòøé úåøú àøõ éùøàì] ëî"ã àéðå ëðëñéå áøí ëî"ã ëðëñéå äåà çééá.
Question (R. Yonah, to R. Ze'ira): Is this like the opinion that [Ma'aser Sheni] is not like his property, but according to the opinion that it is like his property, it is obligated?
à"ì àåó àðà ñáø ëï
Answer (R. Ze'ira): Also I hold like this.
äåé (îò"ù) [ö"ì îòùø òðé - ø"ù ñéøéìéå] äåàéì åëì òîà îåãéé ùäåà ëðëñéå çééá
Consequence: Ma'aser Oni, since all agree that it is like his property, it is obligated.
äåé ôìéâé (äéà - äâø"à îåç÷å) î"ã çééá àôéìå úøåîä ùáå çééáú. åî"ã ôèåø àôéìå çåìéï ùáå ôèåøéï.
They argue [about Ma'aser Rishon, from one extreme to the other - SEDEI YEHOSHUA]. The one who says that [it is like his property, so] it is obligated, even the Terumah in it is obligated [in Chalah]. The one who says that [it is not like his property, so] it is exempt, even the Chulin in it is exempt [from Chalah. We explained this like R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO.]
îàï ãàîø çééá òùàå úøåîú îòùø òì î÷åí àçø îä àú òáéã ìä (áâãéù ùðãîò [ãó é òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] áòéñä ùðãîòä) [ö"ì ëâãéù ùðãîò àå ëèáì - äâø"à]
Question: According to the opinion that it is obligated, if he made it Terumas Ma'aser on another place, how do you judge it - like a stack that became Nidma (mixed with Terumah, since some of it should be Terumah Gedolah; one must separate its tithes from elsewhere, lest he take the Terumah that was mixed in), or like Tevel (one may separate its tithes from it itself? We explained this like GRA.)
ø' éåçðï àîø àðà áòéúä.
R. Yochanan: I asked [the following question].
ø' éàùéä àîø àðà áòéúä.
R. Yoshiyah: [Also] I asked [the following question].
îä áéï âãéù ùðãîò ìòéñä ùðãîòä. âãéù ùðãîò àú àîø çééá òéñä ùðãîòä àú àîø ôèåøä.
Question: What is the difference between a stack that became Nidma and a dough that became Nidma (flour of Terumah was mixed in)? A stack that became Nidma, you say that it is obligated [in Terumah], and a dough that became Nidma, you say that it is exempt [from Chalah]!
øáé úðçåîà áùí øáé [ãó å òîåã á] çåðà âãéù ùðãîò òã ùìà ðãîò òáø åäôøéù îîðå úøåî' (àéðä) [ö"ì äøé æä - äâø"à] úøåîä. òéñä ùðãîòä òã ùìà ðãîòä òáø åäôøéù îîðä çìä àéðä çìä
Answer (R. Tanchuma citing R. Huna): A stack that became Nidma, before it was Nidma, if he transgressed and separate Terumah from it, it is Terumah. A dough that became Nidma, before it was Nidma, if he transgressed and separated Chalah (i.e. flour) from it, it is not Chalah;
ãúðéðï úîï äîôøéù çìä ÷îç àéðä çìä åâæì áéã ëäï:
(Mishnah): If one separated Chalah from flour (before kneading), it is not Chalah, and [if the Kohen took it], it is theft in the Kohen's hand.
åîåúø äòåîø:
(Mishnah): Excess [barley harvested for] the Omer.
îúðé' ãìà ëø"ò ãø"ò îçééá áçìä åáîòùøåú:
Our Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva, for R. Akiva obligates in Chalah and Ma'aseros.