Peninei Halakha

11 – Ḥalla

01. The Meaning of Separating Ḥalla from Bread

There is a mitzva to set aside a portion of dough intended for bread as ḥalla and give it to a kohen. The kohen and his family would use it to prepare bread and cakes and eat them in a state of tahara. These gifts helped sustain them as they fulfilled their sacred mission of teaching Torah to Israel. As the Torah states: “The Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land to which I am bringing you, then, when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall raise up an offering to the Lord. The first of your doughs you shall raise up as ḥalla, as an offering; like the offering of the threshing floor, so shall you raise it up. From the first of your doughs you shall give an offering to the Lord throughout your generations” (Bamidbar 15:17–21).

Bread is humanity’s staple food, and it reveals something central to human uniqueness: the human being does not merely consume what the world provides. He takes the raw materials of creation and, through choice, learning, and labor, turns them into something new. Animals eat what is available to them – grasses, leaves, grains, vegetables, fruits, and meat. Bread, by contrast, reaches the table only through a long chain of human work: the soil is plowed, the grain is sown, the stalks are harvested, the kernels are separated from stalks and chaff through threshing, winnowing, and sorting, the kernels are ground into flour, the flour is kneaded with water into dough, and the dough is baked into bread. Of all the foods people eat, bread is the one most shaped by human intelligence and craft.

So too, the human being does not arrive in the world fully formed. Animals quickly and instinctively learn how to survive and reproduce. A person must spend years learning how to secure food, clothing, and shelter, how to build a family, and how to harness the immense forces of nature. This capacity – to choose, to learn, to create, and to refine the world – is an expression of the image of God within humanity.

Yet the very powers that make human creativity possible can also be turned toward evil. A person can use his intelligence and skill to raise himself above others, to deceive and steal, to destroy and betray, and to place his desires at the center of life. The prohibition against eating bread before ḥalla has been separated reminds him that his creative powers are not self-generated; God gave them to him, and he must not misuse them. By giving ḥalla to the kohen, the bread – and the entire human process that produced it – becomes linked to holiness. Those who eat from this bread can thereby elevate their creative strength and direct it toward goodness and blessing. This is what the Sages meant when they said: “Whoever fulfills the mitzva of ḥalla is as though he has nullified idolatry, and whoever neglects the mitzva of ḥalla is as though he has upheld idolatry” (Vayikra Rabba 15:6). In this broader sense, “idolatry” includes all the ways a person turns his life toward the false gods of money, desire, and pride.

The Sages further taught that the human being is “the ḥalla of the world.” God created the earth and all its raw materials, kneaded them, as it were, with rainwater, and from that “dough” brought forth all plant and animal life. From within that “dough,” He then separated ḥalla – and from it created the human being in His image, so that humanity would guide the world toward goodness. When Adam Ha-rishon sinned, he brought tum’a upon himself and upon the entire world. To repair that sin, Israel was commanded to separate ḥalla for the kohen and preserve it in a state of tahara, so that they would remember their calling. This mitzva is especially connected to women, because a woman has a unique capacity to shape and direct the creative forces of human life, and through that, to help repair the sin (see Bereishit Rabba 14:1; 17:7–8).

The Sages also taught: “By virtue of three things the world was created: by virtue of ḥalla, by virtue of ma’asrot, and by virtue of bikurim” (Bereishit Rabba 1:4). All three mitzvot are called “first,” teaching us that the first aim of creation is to reveal holiness within the world. Bikurim, terumot, and ma’asrot are given from produce that grows through the ordinary processes of nature. Through bikurim, one connects to the overarching vision of the people of Israel (above, 7:15). Through terumot and ma’asrot, blessing spreads to the fields and their crops (above, 7:13). Ḥalla, by contrast, is given from the work of human hands. Through it, a person merits that blessing rest upon his labor and his home, as the verse states: “And the first of your doughs you shall give to the kohen – to bring blessing upon your house” (Yeḥezkel 44:30).

02. The Distinctive Character of Ḥalla

Ḥalla is one of the twenty-four gifts that Israel is obligated to give to the kohanim. These gifts are meant to free the kohanim from the burden of earning a livelihood, enabling them to fulfill their sacred mission of teaching Torah to Israel and guiding them in mitzvot and proper conduct. Among these gifts, ḥalla has a distinctive place. It comes from bread, humanity’s staple food, and it creates a continuous bond between the holiness of the priesthood and the ordinary work of preparing food in the Jewish home.

Unlike terumot and ma’asrot, which landowners distributed in the fields in large quantities several times a year, ḥalla was woven into the rhythm of daily life. Each day, as bread was prepared in the home, a Jewish woman would give ḥalla to her kohenet neighbor. In this way, the making of bread – the most ordinary and necessary act of household life – became connected to the values of holiness.

Once ḥalla is separated, it becomes sanctified like teruma: non-kohanim may not eat it, and kohanim may eat it only in a state of tahara, as the Torah states: “Like the gift of the threshing floor, so shall you set it aside” (Bamidbar 15:20). For this reason, great care had to be taken that the ḥalla not become tamei, because once it did, it could no longer be eaten.

This made the mitzva unusually delicate. Produce becomes susceptible to tum’a only after it has come into contact with water for washing, food preparation, or some other use. Until then, it cannot contract tum’a. Teruma from fruit could usually be separated before the fruit had been exposed to water, thereby avoiding the problem of tum’a at the outset. The obligation of ḥalla, however, begins only after flour is mixed with water and turned into dough. If the person preparing the dough was tamei, her hands would make the dough tamei, and the ḥalla separated from it would also become tamei. This would dishonor the mitzva and cause the ḥalla to be lost, since it would no longer be fit for the kohen to eat.

Therefore, when a woman was kneading dough while in a state of nidda or another form of tum’a, she would call her kohenet neighbor to knead the dough for her. The woman who owned the dough would recite the berakha over separating ḥalla, and the kohenet would take her portion (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 3:1). In this way, the mitzva of ḥalla greatly strengthened the bond between Jewish households and the families of kohanim.[1]

By Torah law, the mitzva of ḥalla is fulfilled by separating even a small amount. The Sages, however, required a meaningful gift: at least one twenty-fourth of the dough, about four percent. For a commercial baker, whose livelihood depends on the bread he sells, they set a smaller minimum of one forty-eighth, about two percent; since he generally works with large batches, even this smaller fraction is still a respectable gift. If the dough became tamei unintentionally, even someone baking at home separates only one forty-eighth, since the kohen cannot eat the ḥalla in any case (Mishna, Ḥalla 1:9; 2:7; Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 2:3; SA YD 328:1).

[1]. Since ḥalla and teruma are meant to be eaten in a state of tahara, one may not render them tamei or otherwise make them unfit for use (MT, Laws of Terumot 12:1). Nevertheless, kohanim would inevitably have periods when they were tamei and unable to eat gifts that require tahara. The Torah therefore provided them with other gifts that may be eaten even in a state of tum’a, such as the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of an animal (above, 7:4; below, 19:1).

This requirement to preserve ḥalla in a state of tahara also affected the way dough was prepared. If a Yisrael is tamei and therefore cannot prepare the dough without rendering it tamei, Rambam maintains that, when there is a tahor kohen within four mil who can knead the dough, the Yisrael must bring him the dough so that it can be prepared in tahara (MT, Laws of Bikkurim 8:11). Tosafot formulate this obligation in the case of someone traveling on the road (Tosafot, Pesaḥim 46a, s.v. legabei), while most poskim apply it even to someone at home: whenever a tahor kohen is within four mil, the Yisrael must make the effort to have the dough prepared in tahara (Mahari Kurkus; Kesef Mishneh; and others). If no tahor kohen is available within that distance, or if the Yisrael cannot reach him, the poskim disagree: Ramban and Rashba maintain that he should knead the dough in small batches, each below the ḥalla threshold; Rambam maintains that he may knead the full amount in a state of tum’a, even though the ḥalla will then be tamei.

03. The Mitzva in Eretz Yisrael and Outside the Land

Like terumot and ma’asrot, the mitzva of ḥalla is tied to Eretz Yisrael, as the Torah states: “When you come to the land to which I am bringing you… when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set aside a gift for the Lord” (Bamidbar 15:18–19). These mitzvot also depend on the Jewish people’s national presence in the Land. They apply by Torah law only when most of Israel lives there, as the Sages derive from the phrase “when you come to the land”: “when all of you come, and not when only some of you come” (Ketubot 25a). This teaches a fundamental principle: the holiness embedded in nature is revealed when the people of Israel, created to reveal the word of God, live in Eretz Yisrael, the Land through which holiness is meant to be revealed.

There is, however, an important difference between ḥalla and terumot and ma’asrot. Terumot and ma’asrot are determined by the produce itself: one must still separate terumot and ma’asrot from fruit or grain that grew in Eretz Yisrael and had its processing completed there, even if it is later taken outside the Land (above, 8:9). Ḥalla, by contrast, is determined by where the dough is made. One must separate ḥalla from dough kneaded in Eretz Yisrael even when the flour came from grain grown outside the Land; by Torah law, dough kneaded outside the Land is exempt from ḥalla, even if the flour came from grain grown in Eretz Yisrael (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 2:1). With terumot and ma’asrot, the sanctity follows produce that grew in the Land. With ḥalla, the sanctity is attached to the human work done in the Land. Even if the grain itself grew elsewhere, once Jews knead it into dough in Eretz Yisrael, that creative act must be sanctified through the separation of ḥalla.

After the destruction of the First Temple and Israel’s exile from the Land, most Jews no longer lived in Eretz Yisrael, and the Torah obligation of ḥalla came to an end. Even with the building of the Second Temple, the biblical obligation was not restored, because most of the Jewish people remained in exile. Therefore, the Sages of the Great Court at the beginning of the Second Temple period, led by Ezra the Scribe, enacted that terumot, ma’asrot, and ḥalla continue to be separated by rabbinic law even when most of Israel is not living in its Land.

The Sages extended the mitzva even further with respect to ḥalla, requiring Jews outside the Land to separate it from their dough so that the mitzva would not be forgotten. They did not make a similar enactment for terumot and ma’asrot, because their obligation is tied directly to produce grown in the Land. Ḥalla is different: although it too is rooted in Eretz Yisrael, its obligation begins when a person kneads dough. In that respect, it resembles mitzvot that depend on human action rather than on the soil itself, and the Sages were therefore able to extend it even to dough prepared outside the Land (Tosafot, Kiddushin 36b; below, 12:10).

This enactment carries a deeper meaning as well. Because Israel fulfilled the mitzva of ḥalla in Eretz Yisrael throughout the First Temple period, the Sages were able to draw its holiness outward, extending the obligation to dough prepared by Jews even outside the Land. In this way, Jewish creativity in the Diaspora remains bound to the holiness that begins in Eretz Yisrael and will ultimately spread from there to the entire world.

04. The Mitzva of Ḥalla in the Present Era

After the destruction of the Second Temple, as Jewish settlement in the Land diminished, the process of purification through the ashes of the red heifer was no longer available. As a result, kohanim are considered tamei met and may not eat teruma or ḥalla (above, 7:1). Even so, the obligation to separate ḥalla remains. Until ḥalla has been separated, the bread or cakes may not be eaten; once it is separated, it is burned or respectfully buried so that no one mistakenly eats it. The law outside the Land will be explained below, section 13. Since the separated portion can no longer be eaten by the kohen, one need not separate one twenty-fourth of the dough, as was required when ḥalla was given as an edible priestly gift. It is enough to separate any amount.

Although the mitzva in the present era is rabbinic, and although kohanim may not eat the ḥalla, separating it still keeps the mitzva’s vision alive. It reminds us that our bread – and the human labor that produces it – must remain connected to holiness, and through that connection blessing is drawn into the home. For this reason, some women enhance the mitzva by baking an amount of dough that requires ḥalla on Erev Shabbat (Rema OḤ 242:1).

The same development took place outside the Land. At the beginning of the Second Temple period, the Sages required Jews outside Eretz Yisrael to separate ḥalla, and at that stage kohanim would eat it in a state of tahara. Several generations later, however, the Sages decreed that the lands outside Eretz Yisrael have the status of tum’a (below, 12:9). From then on, ḥalla separated outside the Land became tamei, and kohanim could no longer eat it.

To ensure that people would still remember that ḥalla is meant to be eaten by kohanim, the Sages instituted the separation of two portions outside the Land. The first was burned, like all tamei ḥalla that may not be eaten. The second was given to kohanim to eat, even though they were tamei. Over time, however, most Diaspora communities adopted the practice of separating only one portion of ḥalla, which is burned or buried. Since the whole purpose of the second portion was to preserve the memory of edible ḥalla as it existed in Eretz Yisrael, once kohanim in Eretz Yisrael could no longer eat ḥalla because of tum’a, it was no longer fitting for kohanim outside the Land to eat it either. Therefore, outside the Land as well, the accepted practice is to separate one portion of ḥalla and burn it (Rema OḤ 322:5; below, 12:10).[2]

In summary: In the present era, even though kohanim may not eat ḥalla, whenever a Jew prepares dough from which ḥalla must be separated – whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside the Land – he must separate at least some amount by rabbinic law. When the majority of the Jewish people lives in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation of ḥalla there will again become biblical, and blessing will increase. Even then, however, kohanim will not be able to eat the ḥalla until the laws of tahara can once again be observed in practice. When that day comes, kohanim will again reveal holiness through eating ḥalla, and blessing will grow within Israel until it spreads openly to the entire world, so that “all the families of the earth” are blessed through us. The Sages’ enactment to separate ḥalla even outside the Land hints at this future expansion of blessing from Israel to the whole world.

[2]. Rambam (MT, Laws of Bikkurim 5:10–11) and SA YD 322:5 imply that the original enactment for the Diaspora remains in force. According to this view, even in the present era one should separate two portions of ḥalla in the Diaspora. The first is burned, while the second may be eaten by kohanim who are tamei, even if their tum’a is bodily, such as keri or nidda. If a kohen is present who is free of bodily tum’a, one may separate only one portion of ḥalla, and he may eat it.In practice, however, Rash, Rashba, and Smag write that the Diaspora custom is to separate only one portion of ḥalla and burn it, since ḥalla is no longer eaten even in Eretz Yisrael. This custom is also cited by Tosafot (Ḥullin 104a, s.v. ḥalat) and Sefer ha-Teruma. Another reason for discontinuing the practice of kohanim eating ḥalla in the Diaspora is the concern that it would not be treated properly and might be eaten in violation of halakha (Sefer ha-Teruma; Radvaz). Rema YD 322:5 and MB 457:22 likewise write that throughout Ashkenazic lands the custom is to separate one portion of ḥalla and burn it. The widespread Sephardic custom is also not to eat ḥalla in the Diaspora, as Radvaz writes (3:864). So too write Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 2:8 and Kedushat ha-Aretz 2:7.

When tahara was practiced, even teruma or ḥalla that had become tamei was still given to a kohen, who could use it as fuel for his oven. In the present era, however, because kohanim may not eat teruma or ḥalla while tamei, the custom is not to give them tamei teruma or ḥalla, lest they mistakenly eat it. Rather, one who separates ḥalla either burns it, or wraps it and places it in the garbage (Radvaz 1:731; see above, 7:7; 9:6).

05. The Practical Procedure for Separating Ḥalla

The mitzva of ḥalla applies to dough intended for baking when its flour comes from the five species of grain, as explained below, and when it contains a significant amount of flour – enough flour to provide food for at least a full day. This means that the flour must have a volume of at least 43.2 eggs, approximately 2.160 liters, as explained in the next section.

The mitzva applies to men and women alike. When husband and wife knead the dough together, however, the wife is given the first opportunity to perform the mitzva, because she generally carries greater responsibility for the inner life and needs of the home (see Or Zaru’a, end of §225; Rashi, Shabbat 32a).

The obligation of ḥalla begins only once flour and water have come together to form dough. Therefore, one who separated ḥalla from dry flour has not fulfilled the mitzva. Though ḥalla may be separated once dough has begun to form, the preferred time is after the kneading is complete (SA YD 327:3).

Before separating ḥalla, one recites the berakha: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us le-hafrish ḥalla.” Some communities use a slightly different concluding formula: Sephardic communities generally say le-hafrish ḥalla teruma, while many Ashkenazic and North African communities say le-hafrish ḥalla min ha-issa.[3]

After reciting the berakha, one separates a small piece of dough as ḥalla. Many have the practice of declaring at the time of separation, “This is ḥalla.” Since the ḥalla may not be eaten, it should be burned so that no one mistakenly eats it. Alternatively, it may be wrapped respectfully and placed in the garbage, which is the practice of many (above, 9:5, note 8).[4]

If one forgot to separate ḥalla before baking, one separates it afterward, thereby permitting the baked goods. If one is unsure whether ḥalla was separated from baked goods served to him, one should separate a small crumb as ḥalla and place it somewhere it will not be eaten.

Girls and boys may perform the mitzva once they reach the age of mitzvot.[5]

One may also appoint another Jew to separate ḥalla on one’s behalf, in which case the appointed person separates it with a berakha. A cook may likewise be appointed as a standing representative to separate ḥalla from all dough prepared during the course of employment. However, ḥalla separated without the owner’s consent is ineffective (SA YD 328:3).

[3]. There are various customs regarding the nusach of the berakha, all of which are valid: le-hafrish ḥalla (MT, Laws of Bikkurim 5:11; KSA 35:1; AHS 328:2; Olat Re’iya, p. 353; SSK 42:12; Derekh Emuna 5:100); le-hafrish ḥalla teruma (Ben Ish Ḥai; Kaf ha-Ḥayim 457:9); le-hafrish ḥalla min ha-issa (Rashba; Siddur Beit Yaakov); le-hafrish teruma (SA YD 328:1; Vilna Gaon, Bi’ur ha-Gra 2); and le-hafrish teruma ḥalla (Maharshal; Ḥatam Sofer). These variations reflect the dual meaning of the word ḥalla. In biblical usage, ḥalla refers to the dough, while the portion separated from it is called teruma, as the verse states: “The first of your doughs – ḥalla – you shall set aside as teruma” (Bamidbar 15:20). In rabbinic usage, however, both the mitzva and the portion given to the kohen are called ḥalla; even the tractate devoted to this mitzva is called Ḥalla.

[4]. Rambam and SA do not require one to declare, “This is ḥalla.” Based on Raavad, however, there is a view that one should make such a declaration. Many women follow this practice, though it is not obligatory.

As explained above, 9, note 8, many Rishonim maintain that there is a mitzva to burn teruma and ḥalla that have become tamei, and several authorities rule this way in practice (Sha’arei Tzedek 14:34; Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 10, note 30; Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 9:10). Since ḥalla is prohibited for consumption, one must dispose of it in a way that prevents anyone from eating it and also avoids having its taste absorbed into utensils. Therefore, when burning the ḥalla, one should not place it on a baking tray; instead, it should be placed on the bottom of the oven. This may be done even while other food is baking there, because the taste of the ḥalla will not enter the food. Some are stringent and wrap the ḥalla in aluminum foil before burning it (see Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 8:6).

In practice, many people do not burn the ḥalla. Since burning can be difficult, and waiting to burn it may lead to mistakes, the accepted lenient practice is to wrap it respectfully and place it in the garbage. There is also a view that when less than a kezayit is separated as ḥalla, all agree that it need not be burned (Yehuda Ya’aleh YD 352). On the other hand, Rema YD 322:5 writes that the custom is to enhance the mitzva by separating a kezayit. One may choose which enhancement to follow.

When kohanim would eat ḥalla, people were careful to keep it from becoming tamei. They therefore separated it at the earliest possible time, once most of the flour had mixed with the water. In the present era, since we are all in a state of tum’a and the ḥalla will not be eaten, we wait until the preferred time: when the mixture has become a cohesive dough (SA YD 327:2–3).

[5]. If a boy or girl separated ḥalla during the year immediately before reaching the age of mitzvot, Rambam maintains that the separation is valid after the fact, provided the child understood what he or she was doing. This follows the law of a mufla ha-samukh le-ish – a child close to adulthood whose halakhic declarations can take effect when made with understanding (MT, Laws of Terumot 4:5; SA YD 331:33). According to another view, children do not have the halakhic capacity to separate ḥalla until they actually reach the age of mitzvot (Vilna Gaon, Bi’ur ha-Gra 331:78, following the straightforward reading of Mishna, Terumot 1:1).

06. The Amount That Triggers the Obligation of Ḥalla

The threshold for ḥalla is learned from the Torah’s phrase “the first of your kneading” – arisoteikhem (Bamidbar 15:20). The Sages connect this to the dough of the generation of the desert, made from each person’s daily portion of manna: an omer per person (Shemot 16:16). Since the manna could be ground and kneaded into dough (Bamidbar 11:8), and since an omer is one-tenth of an eifa (Shemot 16:36), this became the minimum measure for ḥalla (Eruvin 83b). From dough containing less than this amount, one does not separate ḥalla, because it lacks sufficient halakhic significance.

One-tenth of an eifa is equivalent to the volume of forty-three and one-fifth eggs – 2.160 liters, assuming an egg volume of about 50 cc. In practice, it is best to round the amount to 2.200 liters. This threshold is measured by the volume of the flour before water is added; ingredients added later, such as salt or spices, do not count toward the ḥalla threshold. The most accurate method, therefore, is to measure the flour by volume, using a container with volume markings.

When one cannot measure the flour by volume, one may rely on weight as an estimate. This estimate is not exact, because flour of the same volume can weigh more or less depending on the type of flour and how densely it is packed. Therefore, when using weight, there are two practical amounts. Once the lower threshold is reached, one separates ḥalla without a berakha, since the obligation remains uncertain. Once the higher threshold is reached, one separates with a berakha, since the obligation is then clear. Since different flours have different densities, each type of flour has its own amounts, as shown in the table.[6]

Whole Wheat White Flour / Spelt Rye Oat / Barley
Separate with a berakha (compressed flour) 1.650 kg 1.550 kg 1.350 kg 1.200 kg
Separate without a berakha

(loose flour)

 1.450 kg 1.250 kg 1.150 kg 1.050 kg

[6]. The ḥalla threshold is forty-three and one-fifth eggs (Rif; Rambam, MT, Laws of Bikkurim 6:15; Rosh; SA YD 324:1). This is a measure of flour by volume, not by weight. With water, volume and weight correspond: one liter of water weighs one kilogram. Flour, however, is much lighter than water. Wheat flour, depending on the type and density, weighs roughly half to two-thirds as much as an equal volume of water. Therefore, the precise way to measure the ḥalla threshold is by volume.

Kol Bo 48:9 questions whether flour should be measured when loose and aerated or when compressed. Nevertheless, since the other Rishonim and Aḥaronim did not raise this concern, we measure flour as it stands before us. This is also stated explicitly by Tosafot, Menaḥot 52b, s.v. ḥasera; Meiri, Pesaḥim 48b; Magen Avraham 456:4; Peri Ḥadash 456:1; and Maḥatzit ha-Shekel 456:4. Accordingly, the best practice is to measure the flour in a container that holds the ḥalla measure. Once the flour’s volume reaches 2.160 liters, one separates ḥalla with a berakha; ideally, it is preferable to use 2.200 liters.

In practice, however, measuring by volume is not always possible. Often one has only a kitchen scale, or the flour comes in bags marked by weight. For that reason, poskim also gave weight equivalents. Once weight is used, however, the density of the flour becomes important. R. Ḥayim Naeh found that flour sometimes weighs only about half as much as an equal volume of water, rather than two-thirds, and therefore ruled that one should separate ḥalla without a berakha already from 1.250 kg of wheat flour. Our measurements, however, show that when white flour is packed down, it weighs a little more than two-thirds as much as an equal volume of water, and whole wheat flour weighs considerably more. It may be that flour today is generally more compressed because it is stored in sealed bags.

Since one cannot always know how dense the flour is, the table gives two practical amounts. Once the lower amount is reached, one separates ḥalla without a berakha, because the flour may already reach the ḥalla threshold. Once the higher amount is reached, one separates with a berakha, because that measure is then certainly present. True, one could argue that since ḥalla in the present era is rabbinic, cases of doubt should be treated leniently (SA YD 325:1 and Shakh 2; SA YD 330:4 and Shakh 8; see Mishpetei Eretz 2, note 13). Nevertheless, because this uncertainty arises constantly, there is reason to be stringent, as we find with other recurring halakhic doubts, such as the laws of the udder and of an asham. In practice, as an enhancement of the mitzva, the custom is to separate without a berakha from any amount that may reach the ḥalla threshold (see Mishpetei Eretz 2, note 2 and the table on p. 477; Tevu’ot ha-Sadeh, p. 147). The table here assumes an egg volume of 50 cc, and the amount for separating with a berakha was rounded upward to avoid uncertainty.

To explain the calculation more fully: Rambam’s calculation assumes that flour weighs about one-third less than an equal volume of water (Commentary to the Mishna, Eduyot 1:2). Rambam also gives the weight of flour from which ḥalla must be separated as approximately 520 Egyptian zuzim, or dirhams (MT, Laws of Bikkurim 6:15). On this basis, R. Ḥayim Naeh calculated the amount as 1.666 kg, using an egg volume of 57.6 cc; according to that measure, forty-three and one-fifth eggs equal 2.488 liters. However, his calculation relied on the Turkish dirham current in his time, which weighed 3.205 grams. About four hundred years earlier, the Turks had increased the dirham’s weight by roughly twelve percent, whereas the dirham used before Rambam’s time weighed only about 2.83 grams (see Peninei Halakha: Berakhot 10:10, note 11). In practice, then, we treat an egg volume as 50 cc, which makes 2.160 liters the flour volume that triggers the ḥalla obligation.

A more precise calculation of Rambam’s measure supports this conclusion. If the measure is calculated using 520 dirhams at 2.83 grams each, an egg volume comes to 50.94 cc, and the ḥalla measure comes to about 2.200 liters. Other data points yield slightly smaller measures: dirham coins weighing 2.81 grams would produce an egg volume of 50.58 cc and a ḥalla measure of 2.185 liters, while the early Ashkenazic measure gives an egg volume of about 46 cc and a ḥalla measure of 1.987 liters (R. Benish, Middot Ve-shi’urei Torah 13:4–5). This Ashkenazic measure also accords with Roman and Egyptian cubits, and Rambam’s comments in Eduyot 1:2 likewise imply a slightly smaller measure. Since rabbinic measures are generally rounded, the practical standard is to treat an egg volume as 50 cc. Accordingly, one separates ḥalla with a berakha from 2.160 liters of flour; for ease of measurement, it is best to round up to 2.200 liters.

If one separated ḥalla without a berakha from a doubtful amount and later added more dough so that the total amount now certainly reaches the ḥalla threshold, one must separate ḥalla again, still without a berakha.

According to Tzlaḥ and Ḥazon Ish, eggs in earlier times were about twice the size of our eggs, close to 100 cc, making the ḥalla measure 4.320 liters. However, based on Ḥazon Ish’s own measurements, wheat flour weighs only slightly more than half as much as an equal volume of water, not two-thirds; according to this, one would separate with a berakha from 2.250 kg of flour (see Mishpetei Eretz 2:1). A similar calculation appears in Ben Ish Ḥai, Tzav 19, who treats weight like volume, producing a figure close to that of Ḥazon Ish; see Peninei Halakha: Berakhot 10:6, note 7. In practice, however, the custom is not to follow this view, which raises serious difficulties. See Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 4:1, which records that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv wrote that the custom follows R. Ḥayim Naeh.

Some question whether whole wheat flour should fully count toward the ḥalla threshold, because the bran – the outer layer of the kernel – may have been removed and later returned to the flour. If so, perhaps it should not count toward the measure, as the Mishna states: “Five quarter-kav of flour are subject to ḥalla – they, together with their leaven, bran, and coarse bran… If the coarse bran was removed from them and returned to them, they are exempt” (Mishna, Ḥalla 2:6). This concern is raised in Mishpetei Eretz 2, note 2, and Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 4:5 writes that, because of this doubt, one should add 15 percent before separating with a berakha. In practice, however, this does not seem necessary. The Gemara in Shabbat 76b and the commentators to the Mishna explain that bran which was removed and later returned was excluded from the measure because people did not normally prepare dough that way, except in poverty. Today, however, whole wheat flour is valued precisely because it includes the bran. Since flour of this kind is made for ordinary use, the bran counts toward the ḥalla threshold. R. Mechta writes similarly in Emunat Itekha 112.

One may ask: if the ḥalla measure corresponds to the amount of manna a person received for one day, how can that measure be so large? If manna had the caloric value of wheat or barley – about 330 calories per 100 grams – then each person would have received nearly 5,000 calories a day, far more than the 2,000 to 2,500 calories a typical person today generally needs. At times, they also ate meat in the evening. Moreover, the Mishna states that two kav of wheat flour were enough to sustain a poor woman for a week (Ketubot 5:8), whereas the ḥalla measure, understood as a day’s food volume, is one and three-quarter kav. Similarly, regarding akhilat pras, we find that an average person’s daily bread consumption was about eight egg-volumes (Eruvin 82b; Peninei Halakha: Berakhot 10:7, note 8). True, bread was the staple food, even when eaten together with other foods. It is therefore logical to assume that manna had a significantly lower caloric value than grain, and that each person received the amount he needed. Thus, the ḥalla measure corresponds not to a day’s caloric intake, but to the volume of food that constitutes a person’s basic daily sustenance.

07. Combining Doughs and Baked Goods

When several doughs or baked goods are each below the ḥalla threshold, but together contain enough flour to trigger the obligation, they can combine; once they have combined, one must separate ḥalla from them. This combination occurs in one of two ways. The first is physical attachment: if two doughs became stuck together during kneading or baking to the point that separating them would pull off a bit of one with the other, they are considered joined. The second is shared containment: if the doughs or baked goods are placed in one vessel or bag, or are covered together with one cloth, they combine and are treated as a single unit (SA YD 325:1). If they were placed together in a refrigerator, freezer, oven, or wall-mounted cabinet, it is uncertain whether they combine; therefore, one separates ḥalla from them without a berakha.[7]

A person is permitted to bake the amount he needs and is not required to increase the batch merely in order to fulfill the mitzva of ḥalla. However, if he already intends to bake enough dough to trigger the obligation of ḥalla, he may not divide it into two smaller portions in order to avoid the mitzva (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 3:1; SA YD 324:14). Even in the present era, when the mitzva is rabbinic and kohanim cannot eat the ḥalla because of tum’a, one may not evade it. Through separating the ḥalla, even though we cannot give it to the kohen, we nevertheless remain connected to the holiness and purpose it is meant to bring into our bread and our homes.

If two doughs or two batches of baked goods each contain enough flour to trigger the obligation, one may separate from one for the other, provided they are together in the same place. This is the requirement of mukaf, as explained above, 9:3. If one separated when the doughs or baked goods were not mukaf, the separation is valid after the fact. Therefore, if people forgot to separate ḥalla and the baked goods have already been distributed, one may separate ḥalla from one remaining baked item for the others, even though they are now elsewhere (SA YD 325:2; 331:25; above, 9:3).

[7]. The Mishna states: “One who makes his dough in kav-sized portions and they touch one another are exempt from ḥalla until they adhere. R. Eliezer says: Even one who removes bread from the oven and places it in a basket – the basket combines them for ḥalla” (Mishna, Ḥalla 2:4). This Mishna presents two ways that separate pieces can combine. First, small doughs combine when they adhere to one another. Second, R. Eliezer adds that baked goods placed together in a basket combine for ḥalla. The Gemara explains that the halakha follows R. Eliezer, and that he is adding to the first rule rather than disagreeing with it (Pesaḥim 48b). Thus, both forms of combination are accepted: adhesion and shared containment. This is the ruling of Rambam and SA YD 325:1.

There is a disagreement among the Rishonim whether an oven can combine baked goods for ḥalla. Rambam and those who follow his view maintain that it cannot, while Rosh and those who follow his view maintain that it can. Since many authorities follow Rosh, we take his view into account even though ḥalla in the present era is rabbinic. Therefore, if baked goods that together reach the ḥalla threshold were in the oven at the same time, one should place them afterward in a basket, thereby combining them in a way that certainly requires ḥalla to be separated from them, and then separate with a berakha. If they cannot be placed together again, one separates without a berakha, because the original combination in the oven remains uncertain. The same applies when doughs or baked goods were together in a refrigerator, freezer, or wall cabinet: ideally, they should be combined afterward in a basket and separated with a berakha; if that is not possible, one separates without a berakha (Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 3:28; SSK 42, note 39; Mishpetei Eretz 2:16; Kedushat ha-Aretz 5:7).

The underlying issue is what kind of containment can join separate doughs or baked goods into one unit. A table does not create that kind of containment, since it has no walls like a vessel (Pesaḥim 48b). Because ḥalla in the present era is rabbinic, the poskim rule that baked goods placed together on a table do not combine (Rambam; SA YD 325:1; Shakh 2). A cloth, by contrast, can join them by covering them together. Although some maintain that this works only when the baked goods are wrapped in the cloth on all sides (Aguda; Maharil), in practice, even covering them from above is enough to combine them, and one separates with a berakha (Ḥokhmat Adam; Arukh ha-Shulḥan; Bi’ur Halakha 457:1, s.v. ve-ha-sal).

Once a vessel can combine baked goods for ḥalla, the question becomes how far that combination extends. If some baked goods are inside the vessel while others are piled above its rim, the matter is disputed. Tur maintains that they do not combine, while Smag, in the name of Ri, maintains that they do. Therefore, one separates without a berakha. If, however, they are covered together with a cloth, they combine fully, and one separates with a berakha (Kaf ha-Ḥayim 457:28).

The poskim also discuss whether combination through a vessel depends on timing or contact. Some maintain that a basket combines only immediately after the baked goods are removed from the oven (Maharam Ḥalawa; Nimukei Yosef). In practice, however, they combine even later, and even when they are still dough (Mikdash Me’at 325:10; Rav Pe’alim IV YD 36; Mishpetei Eretz 2:13). Similarly, although some maintain that baked goods placed in a basket combine only if they touch one another (Smag; Rosh), in practice they combine even without touching (Rambam; SA YD 326:1; Pri Ḥadash; R. Ḥayim Palachi; R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach; Kedushat ha-Aretz 5:3; see Mishpetei Eretz 2, note 30).

In the doubtful cases above where I wrote that one should recite a berakha, I followed the accepted custom. True, some contemporary works advise separating without a berakha because of safek berakhot. However, most Aḥaronim were already aware of the dissenting views and nevertheless ruled that one should separate with a berakha. Since that ruling became the accepted practice, we do not set it aside because of the general concern for safek berakhot. It is also possible that many of these disputes apply only where the doughs or baked goods happened to be together, without any specific intent to combine them. When one actively wants them to combine, and there is already some halakhic basis for combination, all may agree that the combination is effective. I did not mention the stricter views in the main text, so as not to burden learners with every opinion. I recorded them here so that those who wish to enhance the mitzva can take them into account from the outset.

If one separated ḥalla from dough that did not reach the ḥalla threshold, the separation has no effect, and the piece removed does not become sanctified. Therefore, if one separated ḥalla from two doughs that were each below the ḥalla threshold, and only afterward they were combined into an amount that triggers the obligation, one must separate again and even recite a berakha (Mishna, Ḥalla 4:5; SA YD 326:5).

The rules for combining separate baked goods made from different grain species depend on various factors, as explained in SA YD 324:2. However, when flours from different species of the five grains are mixed together into one dough, they do combine, as explained below, section 9.

A similar limitation applies to flour from different years. One may not separate ḥalla from dough made with flour from one year for dough made with flour from another year; if one did so, the separation is ineffective. The Sages enacted this restriction so that people would not mistakenly think that one may also separate terumot and ma’asrot from one year’s produce for another. However, if two doughs from different years were each below the ḥalla threshold and were then combined, one must separate ḥalla from them. Since the resulting dough contains flour from both years, one must prepare additional dough from each year and separate from those doughs for the mixed dough (SA YD 324:8; Shakh 16; above, 8:5).

08. Dough Intended to Be Divided Does Not Combine

Doughs combine for ḥalla only when they can be treated as one shared unit. When two doughs are normally kept separate because they are meant for different kinds of baked goods – such as yeast dough and shortcrust pastry dough – they do not combine. Even a single dough may be treated as divided. If it is intended

from the outset to be split into distinct parts – for example, half for a sweet baked good and half for a savory one – those parts do not combine toward the ḥalla threshold, even though they are currently one mass (SA YD 326:1).

This also applies when several women knead one dough together but intend from the outset that each will take her own portion. Since the dough is already marked for division, it is not treated as one shared unit, even if it contains the amount from which ḥalla would otherwise have to be separated. The same remains true after baking: if each woman recognizes her own baked item and is particular to take it for herself, the baked goods do not combine, even if they were all baked in one oven.

Therefore, if women wish to bake together in order to fulfill the mitzva of separating ḥalla, and none has enough dough on her own to trigger the obligation, they must remain full partners in all the baked goods until the baking is complete. Only afterward should each take a portion at random, without any marking that identifies a particular baked good as hers. In that case, one of them may separate ḥalla for everyone. If, however, each woman shapes or braids her own dough in a distinctive way and intends to take it afterward, the doughs are considered divided before baking and do not combine. Similarly, when a kindergarten teacher bakes ḥallot with children before Shabbat, and each child kneads a separate dough with his or her name attached to it, the ḥallot do not combine.[8]

[8]. The Mishna states: “Two women who made two kav and they touched each other – even if they are of one species, they are exempt. But when they belong to one woman, if they are of the same species, they are subject to ḥalla; if they are not of the same species, they are exempt” (Mishna, Ḥalla 4:1). The Yerushalmi explains the principle: “R. Yoḥanan said: In general, one woman is not particular, while two women are particular. One woman who is particular – for example, when she has two types of dough that she does not want to mix – is treated like two women. Two women who are not particular are treated like one woman.” In other words, the determining factor is not only physical contact, but whether the owners treat the doughs as belonging together or as items that must remain separate.

If one kneads enough dough to trigger the obligation of ḥalla and freezes part of it for the following Shabbat, one separates ḥalla with a berakha. However, some authorities raise a concern that once part of the dough is set aside for baking on another day, the original amount is no longer treated as one unit. Therefore, they rule that one should separate without a berakha (Leket ha-Omer 7, note 9). The accepted practice, however, is to separate with a berakha, and this appears correct (Mishpetei Eretz 2, note 46; Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 4, note 7). Frozen dough remains available for use; if needed, one may remove it from the freezer and bake it together with the rest. It therefore retains its connection to the original batch and is comparable to a baker’s dough, which remains subject to combination, as explained in SA YD 326:2. Nor should one argue that dividing dough for different days is not the normal manner of kneading. Today, freezing dough is common. People often knead enough dough to require separating ḥalla, bake part of it, and freeze the rest. Since the obligation begins at the time of kneading, at which point it was all intended as one dough, ḥalla is separated with a berakha.

A practical application of these principles can arise at a party or gathering, when neighbors or relatives bring homemade baked goods from which ḥalla was not separated because each batch was below the ḥalla threshold. If the baked goods are collected in one basket or box for the shared event, they can combine for ḥalla – but only when they are made from the same general type of dough, the kind people are not particular to keep separate. Thus, regular yeast-dough items, such as bread, ḥallot, and rolls, combine with one another; sweet yeast-dough cakes combine with one another; and shortcrust baked goods combine with one another. If together they reach the ḥalla threshold, one must separate ḥalla from them.

Other baked goods combine only when people would ordinarily be willing to mix their doughs. Therefore, baked goods made from the same dough combine even if some are filled with chocolate and others with jam. Dairy baked goods, however, do not combine with meat baked goods, or even with pareve baked goods, because people are careful to keep those doughs separate before baking (Kedushat ha-Aretz 5:11–14).

When dough was kneaded in an amount that reached the ḥalla threshold but was intended to be divided, one does not separate ḥalla from it. Even if more dough is later added, the original dough remains outside the mitzva. Since it had already reached the threshold at a time when its intended division prevented the obligation from taking effect, the obligation does not take effect later (Rambam; SA YD 326:4).

09. Flour and Liquids

The mitzva of ḥalla applies specifically to dough intended for baking bread, as the Torah states: “When you eat of the bread of the land” (Bamidbar 15:19). In this context, “bread” means dough made from one of the five species of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye. These grains are unique because their dough can ferment and become ḥametz, which makes them suitable for bread and cakes; when one prevents the dough from fermenting, they can also be used to make matza for the mitzva on Pesaḥ. By contrast, one does not separate ḥalla from baked goods made from corn flour or rice flour, because their dough cannot become ḥametz and is not considered bread. For the same reason, they cannot be used to make matza for Pesaḥ (see Peninei Halakha: Pesaḥ 2:3). It should be noted that buckwheat – called kusemet in modern Hebrew – is a legume; therefore, even when it is ground into flour, one does not separate ḥalla from it, since it is not one of the grain species.

Flours from the five species of grain combine with one another. Therefore, if together they reach the ḥalla threshold, one must separate ḥalla (SA YD 324:2). When other ingredients are added, such as cornstarch, sugar, cocoa, or eggs, for ḥalla to be relevant, the grain component must define the mixture. Three factors determine this: the finished baked good must taste of grain; the grain flour itself must reach the ḥalla threshold; and the grain flour must make up the majority of the mixture. If all three conditions are met, one separates ḥalla with a berakha. If the first two conditions are met, but the grain flour is not the majority, one separates ḥalla without a berakha. If the baked good does not taste of grain, or if the grain flour itself does not reach the ḥalla threshold, one does not separate ḥalla from it.[9]

The liquid used to knead the flour also affects the obligation. When flour is kneaded with one of the seven liquids that halakha treats as significant, one must separate ḥalla from the dough. Six of these liquids are edible: water, dew, olive oil, wine, milk, and bee honey; the seventh, blood, is forbidden for consumption. If the flour is kneaded with other liquids, such as fruit juice or eggs, it is uncertain whether one must separate ḥalla from the dough, and therefore one separates ḥalla without a berakha. If even a small amount of water is added to the fruit juice, however, one separates ḥalla with a berakha.[10]

[9]. The Mishna states: “One who makes dough from wheat and rice: if it has the taste of grain, it is subject to ḥalla, and a person may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesaḥ; if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to ḥalla, and a person may not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesaḥ” (Mishna, Ḥalla 3:7).

According to Rambam and SA, wheat mixed with rice has a unique law. Since rice has a special property of being drawn along with wheat, one may have to separate ḥalla from the mixture even when the wheat is only a minority. As long as the mixture has the taste of grain and the total mixture reaches the ḥalla threshold, one must separate ḥalla, even if the wheat itself does not reach that threshold (MT, Laws of Bikkurim 6:11; SA YD 324:9–10). According to Rambam, the wheat need not even constitute a kezayit within akhilat pras; according to Raavad, it must.

From this case, authorities derive principles for other mixtures of grain flour with non-grain ingredients. According to Rambam, if the grain flour itself reaches the ḥalla threshold, then one must separate ḥalla from the mixture even when the grain is not the majority, provided the grain is present at the level of a kezayit within akhilat pras. Raavad maintains that the grain must also be the majority (Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 3, note 4; see MB 453:14). Rosh is understood by many Aḥaronim as going further: when the finished baked good tastes like grain and the full mixture reaches the ḥalla threshold, one may have to separate ḥalla even if the grain flour itself does not reach the threshold. According to Magen Avraham, this requires a kezayit of grain within akhilat pras; according to another view, even that is unnecessary. Others understand Rosh as agreeing with Rambam (Beit Ephraim; Avnei Nezer).

Many Rishonim, however, including Ramban, Rashba, Or Zaru’a, and others, rule in accordance with Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel as cited in the Yerushalmi: “It is never subject to ḥalla unless it contains the measure of grain” (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 3:5). According to this view, even the unique law of wheat and rice applies only when the wheat flour itself reaches the ḥalla threshold. When it does, one must separate ḥalla from the mixture even if the wheat is not the majority; when it does not, one does not separate ḥalla from the mixture. In mixtures of grain flour with other ingredients, the requirement is stricter: the grain flour must both reach the ḥalla threshold and make up the majority of the mixture.

In practice, wheat and rice are treated as a special case. In all other mixtures of grain flour with non-grain ingredients, if the grain flour itself does not reach the ḥalla threshold, one does not separate ḥalla from the mixture. Those who wish to enhance the mitzva may nevertheless separate without a berakha in deference to the view of Rosh (see Mishpetei Eretz 1:14–16). If the grain flour does reach the ḥalla threshold but is not the majority of the mixture, one separates ḥalla without a berakha. In a wheat-and-rice mixture, however, the presence of grain taste is enough to require separation without a berakha; if the wheat itself reaches the ḥalla threshold, one separates with a berakha.

[10]. The Mishna states: “Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to ḥalla” (Mishna, Ḥalla 2:2). Most Rishonim understand this broadly: the same law applies to dough kneaded with any liquid (Ramban, Rashba, Rashbatz, and many in their understanding of Rambam). Rosh, however, maintains that dough is subject to ḥalla only if it was kneaded with one of the “seven liquids” that halakha treats as significant.

At first glance, SA YD 329:9 seems to follow the majority view, implying that dough kneaded with any type of fruit juice is subject to ḥalla. However, in SA OḤ 462:5, he writes that one should not knead a ḥalla-sized amount of dough with fruit juice, and some explain that he was concerned for Rosh’s view that such dough is exempt from ḥalla (MB 462:20; SHT 462:27). In practice, we are concerned for Rosh’s view, and whenever dough is kneaded with liquids that are not halakhically significant, one separates ḥalla without a berakha (Baḥ; Shakh; Panim Me’irot; AHS; R. Ovadia Yosef; Or Le-Tziyon).

Some explain Rosh even more narrowly, maintaining that in his view only dough kneaded with water is subject to ḥalla (Beit Hillel YD 329:1). Some authorities were concerned for this view as well (Ben Ish Ḥai). However, since this is a minority interpretation of a minority view, the custom is not to be concerned for it, and one separates with a berakha. Therefore, if even a small amount of water is added to fruit juice that is not one of the seven liquids, one separates with a berakha. If a small amount of one of the other six significant liquids was added, one separates without a berakha; if that liquid constitutes the majority, one separates with a berakha (Sha’ar Ha-Melekh, Laws of Berakhot 6:1; R. Akiva Eger; and many others).

10. Dough for Baked Grain Products

As we have learned, the mitzva of ḥalla applies to dough intended for baking bread, as the Torah states: “When you eat of the bread of the land… from the first of your doughs you shall give a gift to the Lord throughout your generations” (Bamidbar 15:19–21). In this context, “bread” includes all grain-based baked goods: cakes, crackers, biscuits, pastries filled with meat, cheese, or vegetables, pretzels, breadsticks, and baklava.

There is, however, an important difference between ordinary bread and other baked grain products. Bread is the food on which people normally establish a meal, and therefore one always recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon over it. Other baked goods are generally eaten casually. Therefore, when one establishes a meal on them, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon; but when he eats them in their usual manner, as a snack, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya. Cooked grain dishes, however, always remain in the category of cooked foods rather than bread. Therefore, even if one establishes a meal on them, he still recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya.

This is the general rule: baked grain products are considered bread for purposes of ḥalla, and one must separate ḥalla from them. Cooked grain dishes are not considered bread, and no ḥalla is separated from them. This is the view of most poskim, as explained in the next section.

The distinction between baking and cooking is therefore crucial. Both use heat, but cooking takes place in boiling liquid, while baking occurs when the dough is heated without being immersed in liquid. A baked good may contain liquid – indeed, that moisture allows it to bake properly rather than burn – but during baking it is not sitting in liquid. Baking is usually done in an oven, but it can also be done in a frying pan or pot placed over a fire. Even if a small amount of oil is added to the bottom of the pan or pot to prevent sticking or to add flavor, the food is still considered baked, since the dough is surrounded by only a minimal amount of liquid. Therefore, one separates ḥalla with a berakha from foods such as malawaḥ and mufleta, which are baked in a pan, and kubaneh and jaḥnun, which are baked in a pot. If one establishes a meal on them, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon.[11]

[11]. It is explained in both the Bavli and Yerushalmi that Reish Lakish is of the opinion that only dough baked in an oven, or in a pan that was heated before the dough was placed in it, is considered baked. R. Yoḥanan, however, maintains that any dough prepared in a pan or pot without a significant amount of surrounding liquid is considered baked (Pesaḥim 37a; Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 1:3). Though Rabbenu Ḥananel rules in accordance with Reish Lakish, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim rule like R. Yoḥanan, including She’iltot, Behag, Rambam, Ri, Rosh, and Rashba. This is also the ruling of SA YD 329:2.

Some authorities raise doubt regarding kubaneh and jaḥnun, since they are baked in a closed pot with a great deal of moisture (Shulḥan Arukh ha-Mekutzar YD 170:18). Others have a similar concern regarding malawaḥ and mufleta and therefore instruct separating ḥalla from them without a berakha (Hilkhot ha-Aretz 12, note 3). However, one should not create unnecessary doubts. These foods are made from thick dough. Even when a great deal of liquid is mixed into the dough, as long as the dough is not liquid enough to be poured and is not placed in a significant amount of liquid while being prepared, it is considered baked. Therefore, one must separate ḥalla from all these foods, and one who establishes a meal on them recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon.

Similarly, I wrote above that even if a small amount of oil is placed in the pot or pan for flavor, the food is still considered baked. Some understand that this is true only when the oil is used to prevent sticking (see Rema OḤ 168:14). It seems, however, that the defining issue is whether a significant part of the dough is submerged in liquid. Only then is it considered cooked rather than baked. This is implied by Meiri, Pesaḥim 37a, and Rash, Ḥalla 1:4, and is stated by Mikdash Me’at 329:2.

11. Thick Dough Intended for Cooking

When thick dough is prepared for foods such as sufganiyot, noodles, ptitim, kreplach, or soup croutons, and these foods will be prepared by boiling in water or deep-frying in oil, one does not separate ḥalla from them. Although the dough is thick and could be baked as bread, its intended preparation is cooking rather than baking, and it is therefore not considered bread.

Rabbenu Tam, however, disagrees. In his view, the obligation of ḥalla begins at the time of kneading; since at that moment the dough is thick and fit to be baked as bread, one must separate ḥalla even if one intends to cook it. In practice, the halakha follows the majority of poskim, who maintain that one does not separate ḥalla from these doughs because they are intended for cooking. Accordingly, even if one establishes a meal on them, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya. Nevertheless, to account for Rabbenu Tam’s view, the accepted practice is to separate ḥalla from them without a berakha.[12]

If one bakes even a small portion of dough that was otherwise intended for cooking – even the size of a small cookie – all agree that one must separate ḥalla from it with a berakha. Therefore, one who wishes to avoid the uncertainty should decide from the outset to bake a small portion of the dough, either in an oven or in a pan (Maharam of Rothenburg; SA YD 329:4).[13]

[12]. According to Rabbenu Tam, the decisive moment for ḥalla is the kneading of the dough. Therefore, one must separate ḥalla from any thick dough that could be baked into bread, even if one intends to cook it afterward. In his view, the dispute between R. Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish regarding ma’aseh ilpas concerns only a thin batter that is poured into a pan or pot and baked, like sponge cake. From thick dough, however, one must still separate ḥalla even if it is later cooked. This is also the view of Roke’aḥ, Yere’im, Rabbenu Peretz, Kol Bo, and Ha-shlama.

There is, however, disagreement about how far Rabbenu Tam’s view extends. Some authorities maintain that even according to Rabbenu Tam, one separates ḥalla only from dough whose final product will still have a bread-like form, such as sufganiyot or fricassee. One would therefore not separate ḥalla from dough intended for noodles and similar foods, since the finished product does not resemble bread (Talmidei Rabbenu Yona; Maharit Algazi). Others maintain that even when dough is intended to be made into noodles, one must separate ḥalla from it, since at the time of kneading it was a thick dough (Mordekhai; Or Zaru’a; Panim Me’irot).

The overwhelming majority of Rishonim disagree with Rabbenu Tam. In their view, one separates ḥalla only from dough intended for baking, because only such dough is considered bread. If the dough is intended for cooking or deep-frying, it will not become bread, and one does not separate ḥalla from it (Rash; Rid; Ramban; Rambam; Ra’avya; Rashba; Meiri; Maharam Ḥalawa; Rabbenu Yeroḥam; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh). This is also the ruling of SA YD 329:3, Vilna Gaon, and SAH. Nevertheless, Shakh 329:4 writes that one should take Rabbenu Tam’s view into account, and many Aḥaronim write similarly, including Ben Ish Ḥai and Da’at Kedoshim. Although most poskim do not require separating ḥalla from such dough, and ḥalla in the present era is rabbinic, the accepted practice is to be stringent from the outset, since separating without a berakha involves no real burden or loss.

A similar issue arises when the dough undergoes more than one process – for example, when it is first scalded in boiling water and only afterward baked. In such cases, its status depends on which stage makes it edible. If the scalding does not make it edible, as with cream puffs or large pretzels, then the later baking gives it the status of a baked good, and one separates ḥalla with a berakha (SA YD 329:8; see Mishpetei Eretz 1:9; Divrei David IV YD 49). If, however, the dough already became edible through cooking, most poskim maintain that later baking does not give it the status of bread for ḥalla. One therefore does not separate ḥalla from noodle kugel: the noodles are already edible after being cooked, even though baking them afterward in a pot improves their taste. Consequently, even if one establishes a meal on kugel, he does not recite ha-motzi or Birkat Ha-mazon (based on Ramban and R. David, Pesaḥim 37a; Minḥat Shlomo III 158:16, unlike R. Elyashiv, Kovetz Teshuvot III 30; see Mishpetei Eretz 1, note 27).

One likewise does not separate ḥalla from kubeh dough: it is prepared by cooking, and since bulgur is mixed into the dough, its preparation is not considered ordinary kneading (Binyan Av IV 60). If, however, sufganiyot are baked in an oven rather than deep-fried in oil, then all agree that one separates ḥalla from the dough with a berakha.

[13]. When one intends to bake even a small portion of the dough, there is concern that he may ultimately decide to bake enough of it to require separating ḥalla. Therefore, if a small portion was baked, one must separate ḥalla from the entire dough with a berakha (Taz YD 329:5; Shakh YD 329:6). Maharam of Rothenburg followed this practice in order to avoid the uncertainty.

Once one plans to bake a small portion of the dough, the question is whether ḥalla may already be separated from the dough as it is, or only after that portion has actually been baked. Baḥ maintains that one may separate ḥalla with a berakha while the dough is still unbaked, since part of it is intended for baking. According to Beit Yosef, however, one should separate only after that portion has been baked. Because of this uncertainty, the practical ruling is to separate after baking.

If one kneaded thick dough with the intention of baking it, and only afterward changed his mind and decided to cook or deep-fry it, all agree that he must separate ḥalla with a berakha, because at the time of kneading it was intended for baking. The reverse is certainly true: if one kneaded the dough intending to cook it and later changed his mind and baked it, he must separate ḥalla with a berakha, because the dough ultimately became bread (SA YD 329:3).

12. Liquid Batter – Blintzes and Laḥuḥ

As a general rule, dough intended for baking is thick, since it is meant to become a baked grain product. By contrast, batter prepared for cooking – such as porridge or soup that contains a large amount of flour – never takes on the status of bread, and therefore one is not obligated to separate ḥalla from it. For the same reason, even if one eats enough of it to constitute a full meal, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya.

Sometimes, however, liquid batter is poured into a pot, baking pan, or frying pan and gradually sets into a baked item, such as pancakes. Once it takes on the form of bread – that is, the form of a baked grain product – one must separate ḥalla from it. If one establishes a meal on it, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon. Only once the batter has finished baking does the obligation of ḥalla take effect; until then, it remains a batter rather than bread dough (Sefer ha-Teruma; Torat ha-Aretz I 4:92–93). However, even after baking, one separates ḥalla only if the baked items contain enough flour to reach the ḥalla threshold. Since a single pancake or similar item generally does not contain that amount on its own, ḥalla becomes relevant only when several such items are combined, as explained above, section 7.

This is the rule for pancakes, laḥuḥ, blintzes, Belgian waffles, and similar foods. When the batter bakes into a product with real thickness – the kind of thickness created as it rises during baking – it has the form of a baked grain product. One must therefore separate ḥalla from it, and if one eats enough of it to constitute a full meal, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon. If, however, the batter is made especially thin, the finished product does not have the form of a baked good; one does not separate ḥalla from it, and even if one eats enough of it to constitute a full meal, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya. When it is uncertain whether the items are ordinary baked products or especially thin ones, one separates ḥalla without a berakha.[14]

[14]. The Gemara states: “Truknin are subject to ḥalla… trita is exempt from ḥalla” (Berakhot 37b). In both cases, the food begins as a liquid batter. The difference is that truknin becomes a thick baked product, while trita becomes a thin one. Rosh explains that trita is exempt because it lacks the form of bread. This is also the ruling of SA YD 329:5 and SA OḤ 168:15.

The practical question, then, is how to identify the “form of bread” in foods made from liquid batter, such as pancakes, crepes, laḥuḥ, blintzes, and Belgian waffles. Many authorities distinguish between thick and thin products: when the batter bakes into something with real thickness, one must separate ḥalla; when it becomes especially thin, one does not separate ḥalla from it. Some attempted to define this threshold numerically, ruling that one does not separate ḥalla from a product less than 3 mm thick, while one must separate ḥalla from a product thicker than 7 mm (Shulḥan Arukh ha-Mekutzar YD 170:19). Others suggested judging by the baking process itself: if the batter becomes ready to eat almost immediately after being poured into the pan, it lacks the form of bread, and one does not separate ḥalla from it; if it is thick enough that baking takes several minutes, it has the form of bread, and one must separate ḥalla from it (Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 5:14).

It seems, however, that these are only external indicators, not practical standards for halakhic ruling. People cannot reasonably be expected to measure the thickness of a pancake, and baking time depends greatly on the heat of the pan. Therefore, as a rule, one must separate ḥalla from these baked batter products. Only in unusual cases does one not separate ḥalla from them: when they are made so thin that they no longer appear to have the form of bread – that is, the form of a baked product. This also accords with the example commonly given by the poskim for exempt trita: a wafer, meaning a single very thin layer of an ordinary wafer, crisp because of its thinness and dryness. A Belgian waffle, by contrast, is thick, and therefore one must separate ḥalla from it.

13. Additional Laws

Ḥalla that became mixed back into the dough: If one separated ḥalla and the piece then became mixed back into the dough, the dough remains permitted only if there is enough ordinary dough to nullify the ḥalla. The required ratio is one hundred to one: if the dough contains one hundred times the volume of the ḥalla, the ḥalla is considered insignificant within the mixture and is nullified. If the dough does not contain that amount, the mixture is prohibited.

However, if people have not yet begun eating from the baked goods, the original designation can still be undone. The person who separated the ḥalla goes to a Torah scholar, who sits together with two others as a beit din, and asks that the designation be annulled. Since separating ḥalla functions like a vow, it can be undone through a similar process; once that is done, the piece is no longer ḥalla retroactively (Rema YD 323:1).

To undo the designation, the one who separated the ḥalla states before the beit din that he regrets having separated it and that had he known it would become mixed back into the dough, he would not have done so. The beit din then says to him three times, “It is permitted to you,” or “The ḥalla is nullified.” At that point, the dough or baked goods are permitted. However, since the original designation has been undone, he must now separate ḥalla again, without a berakha (Halakhot Ketanot 1:48; Birkei Yosef 323:2; Yabi’a Omer YD 1:21; according to Ḥatam Sofer YD 320, one should recite a berakha. The same applies to terumot and ma’asrot; see above, 9:4, note 7).

Ḥalla outside the Land: As we learned above, sections 3–4, the Sages extended the obligation of ḥalla to dough prepared outside the Land as well. Since most of the nation is not presently living in the Land, ḥalla in Eretz Yisrael is also rabbinic. Even so, it remains more stringent than ḥalla outside the Land, for ḥalla in Eretz Yisrael is rooted in a Torah obligation, while ḥalla outside the Land was rabbinic from the outset.

The main practical leniency concerns separating from one dough for another. In Eretz Yisrael, when each dough independently contains enough flour to trigger the obligation, one may separate from one for the other only when both doughs are in the same place; this is the requirement of mukaf, as explained above, section 7. Outside the Land, one may separate even when the other dough is elsewhere. The leniency goes even further: one may bake the dough, begin eating from it, and only near the end separate ḥalla from what remains for what has already been eaten (SA YD 323:1).

Shabbat: Just as one may not separate terumot and ma’asrot on Shabbat, one may not separate ḥalla on Shabbat (SA OḤ 339:4; MB 339:26; above, 10:4). If one is concerned that he will not manage to separate ḥalla before Shabbat, he may make a stipulation beforehand: “Whatever I separate on Shabbat as ḥalla shall be ḥalla.” He may then recite the berakha on Shabbat and separate ḥalla, as explained above, 10:4, note 1. Outside the Land, as noted, one may eat from the baked goods on Shabbat, leave over a small amount for Motza’ei Shabbat, and then separate ḥalla from what remains for what was eaten (Rema OḤ 506:3; MB 506:21).

Ḥalla of a non-Jew: One is not required to separate ḥalla from dough owned by a non-Jew, even if a Jew kneaded it for him. Therefore, ḥalla is not separated in a bakery owned by non-Jews, even if all the workers are Jewish. This differs from teruma: when a non-Jew separates teruma, it becomes sanctified, but when he separates ḥalla, the portion does not become ḥalla at all (SA and Rema YD 330:1; SA YD 331:44; above, 8:11). Therefore, if a non-Jew did separate a portion as ḥalla, he should be told that it has no ḥalla status and need not be reserved for kohanim (Shakh YD 330:3). If dough is jointly owned by a Jew and a non-Jew, and the Jewish partner’s share contains enough flour to trigger the obligation of ḥalla, ḥalla must be separated from the Jewish partner’s share (SA YD 330:3).

Chapter Contents

Peninei Halakha We use cookies to ensure the website functions properly and improve user experience. You can choose which types of cookies to enable.
Cookie Selection


Privacy Policy

Menu