Daily Rambam Accelerated · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Mishneh Torah, First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 6-8
Sugya Map
The halakhic matrix of Challah stands at the crossroads of agricultural obligations (mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz) and the laws of food preparation. Unlike Terumah and Ma'aser, which are triggered by the completion of agricultural processing (gmar melakha) in the field or granary, the obligation of Challah is uniquely tied to the domestic sphere: the transformation of flour into dough through kneading. This analysis of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Bikkurim VeSh'ar Matnot Kehunah SheChutz LaMikdash, Chapters 6–8) maps the conceptual boundaries of this mitzvah.
Conceptual Axes
- The Temporal Locus of Obligation (Zman Ha-Chiyuv): Does the obligation inhere in the raw flour, the liquid-solid integration of kneading (gilgul), or the final baked bread (lechem)?
- The Metaphysics of Combination (Tziruf and Chibur): What constitutes a halakhic unit of dough? Is it physical cohesion (neshika), spatial containment (sal), or the subjective intent of the owner (kpeida)?
- The Chemistry of Bread (Cheftza shel Lechem): How do non-obligated species (e.g., rice, legumes) interact with the five species of grain? Does flavor (ta'am) alone generate a positive obligation ex nihilo, or does it merely extend an existing obligation?
- The Identity of the Obligated Party (Gavra vs. Cheftza): Is Challah a personal debt of the baker (chovat gavra) or an inherent charge upon the dough (chovat cheftza)?
Nafka Minot (Practical Derivations)
- Commercial vs. Domestic Batches: Whether a baker who prepares dough to be divided and sold in sub-measure portions is exempt or obligated.
- Hybrid Doughs: Whether a mixture containing a minority of wheat and a majority of rice requires Challah with a blessing when the wheat flavor remains dominant.
- Post-Baking Unification: Whether distinct, small loaves of bread baked separately can be retroactively combined inside a single basket to trigger a biblical obligation of Challah.
Primary Sources
- Torah: Numbers 15:17-21 ("Reshit arisotekhem...").
- Mishnah: Mishnah Challah 1:1, Mishnah Challah 2:3, Mishnah Challah 3:1, Mishnah Demai 1:3.
- Talmud: Pesachim 48a-b (on sal and meshiyat hakeilim), Menachot 67a (on partners and gentiles), Kiddushin 46b (on separating from flour).
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
To understand the Rambam's conceptual architecture, we must analyze three pivotal passages from Hilchot Bikkurim:
1. The Baker Paradox (6:1)
"הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם חַיָּב בַּחַלָּה. מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַחַמָּה עַל הַקָּרָה וּמִן הַקָּרָה עַל הַחַמָּה, וַאֲפִלּוּ מִדְּפוּסִין הַרְבֵּה."
- Leshon Nuance: The Rambam uses the term lokei'ach (purchaser) rather than nacthum (baker) as the subject of the obligation. This linguistic choice implies a systemic breakdown in the baker's own obligation, or alternatively, a latent status of the bread that is only activated upon purchase. Note also the term defusim (molds/trays), which indicates that physical separation during baking does not disrupt the conceptual unity of the batch.
2. The Ontological Transformation of Rice (6:11)
"הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָה מִן הַחִטִּים וּמִן הָאוֹרֶז: אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן—חַיֶּבֶת בַּחַלָּה... וַאֲפִלּוּ נָתַן שְׂאוֹר מִן הַחִטִּים בְּתוֹךְ עִיסָה שֶׁל אוֹרֶז, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם חִטִּים—חַיֶּבֶת."
- Dikduk Focus: The phrase "אם יש בה טעם דגן" (if it has the taste of grain) is the operational pivot. The Rambam does not require a quantitative majority (rov) of wheat; taste alone (ta'am) suffices to drag the non-obligated rice into the category of lechem.
3. The Moment of Legal Metamorphosis (7:4)
"מֵאֵימָתַי הִיא עוֹנַת הַחַלָּה? מִשֶּׁתִּגַּלְגֵּל הַחִטָּה בְּמַיִם וְתֵעָשֶׂה גּוּף אֶחָד, וּמִשֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה הַשְּׂעוֹרָה תִּיּוּס..."
- Leshon Nuance: The Rambam distinguishes between gilgul (rolling/kneading) for wheat and tiyus (clumping) for barley. Wheat, rich in gluten, must reach cohesive structural integrity (guf echad). Barley, which is less cohesive, is obligated as soon as it forms a loose, aggregate mass (tiyus). This demonstrates that Zman Ha-Chiyuv is not an arbitrary point in time, but is determined by the physical properties of the dough.
Readings
The commentaries on the Rambam grapple with these passages, exposing two distinct ways of understanding the mitzvah: a formalistic approach focused on physical quantities, and a conceptual approach focused on legal definitions.
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE NATURE OF CHALLAH OBLIGATION │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐
│ GAVRA-OBLIGATION │ │ CHEFTHA-OBLIGATION │
│ (Subjective/Intent) │ │ (Objective/Physical) │
└───────────┬───────────┘ └───────────┬───────────┘
│ │
├─► Ohr Sameach (6:1): ├─► Ra'avad (6:11):
│ Baker's intent to divide │ Requires a physical
│ determines obligation. │ minimum (shiur) of grain.
│ │
└─► Radbaz/Kessef Mishneh: └─► Yerushalmi / Rambam:
Subjective trust & ritual │ Flavor (ta'am) transforms
impurity dynamics. │ the entire physical mass.
│
└─► Shulchan Aruch (325:1):
Physical container (sal)
unifies the cheftza.
1. The Baker Paradox (6:1)
Why is the purchaser (lokei'ach) obligated to separate Challah from the baker's bread? If the baker is a Jew, he should have separated it during the kneading process. If he is an am ha'aretz (a common person unlearned in the laws of purity), we generally trust him regarding Challah, as stated elsewhere in the Rambam.
The Kessef Mishneh's Ritual Purity Resolution
The Kessef Mishneh[^1] resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between pure (tahor) and impure (tamei) bread. In Eretz Yisrael, when Challah could be eaten by priests in a state of purity, bakers would eagerly separate it themselves to give to their priestly allies.
However, when the dough is tamei, the resulting Challah cannot be eaten and must be burned. Because the baker does not want to waste fuel or handle impure holy gifts, he leaves the separation to the consumer. Thus, the purchaser's obligation is a practical consequence of the laws of ritual purity.
The Radbaz's Agency Resolution
The Radbaz[^2] offers a simpler, agency-based solution: we are dealing with an instance where the baker explicitly told the purchaser, "I did not separate Challah, you must do it."
Alternatively, the baker is a known transgressor who is suspect regarding this particular mitzvah, stripping him of the default trust granted to an am ha'aretz.
The Ohr Sameach's Conceptual Breakthrough
The Ohr Sameach[^3] rejects these explanations as forced and presents a brilliant, lomdisch reading based on Yerushalmi Demai 5:1. He argues that the issue is not the baker's reliability, but the structural definition of his dough.
[Large Batch of Dough (Obligated at Kneading)]
│
▼ (Baker's Intent: Divide into sub-measure loaves)
┌───────────────┐
│ Baking Process│ <-- Does division occur BEFORE or AFTER baking?
└───────┬───────┘
├─► Division BEFORE baking ──► Exempt (Each loaf is below shiur)
│
└─► Division AFTER baking ──► Obligated (Obligation solidified at kneading)
If a baker kneads a large batch of dough with the intent to divide it into small loaves that are each below the minimum measure (pachot mi-shiur), when does the exemption take effect?
- If he divides the dough before baking, it is exempt because it was never baked as a single, obligated unit.
- But if he bakes the dough as a large sheet or in a way that is only divided after baking, the obligation solidified during the kneading stage (gilgul) when it was still a single mass.
Because the baker only divides the bread after it is baked, the purchaser of an individual loaf is buying bread that was already obligated at the dough stage. The Ohr Sameach uses this to explain why the purchaser must separate Challah, linking it to the dispute of Rabbi Shimon in Mishnah Demai 1:3 regarding whether we fear the baker mixed old and new grain.
2. The Chemistry of Bread: Wheat vs. Rice (6:11)
When wheat flour is mixed with rice flour, the Rambam rules that if the mixture has the flavor of grain (ta'am dagan), it is obligated in Challah. This ruling sparks a major debate between the Rambam and the Ra'avad regarding how halakhic obligations are generated.
The Ra'avad's Quantitative Critique
The Ra'avad[^4] strongly objects to the Rambam's ruling. He argues that a positive obligation like Challah requires a physical minimum (shiur) of one of the five obligated species of grain.
In his view, the concept of flavor (ta'am) is a negative halakhic tool used to forbid mixtures (issur v'heter); it cannot create a positive agricultural obligation ex nihilo in a mass of non-obligated rice. If there is not an omer's worth of wheat flour in the dough, no amount of wheat flavor can make the rice liable.
The Kessef Mishneh's Defense of the Rambam
The Kessef Mishneh[^5] defends the Rambam by demonstrating that this ruling is rooted in Yerushalmi Challah 3:5. The Yerushalmi discusses a case where wheat yeast (sha'or) is added to a rice dough.
The Rambam's position is that the wheat does not merely flavor the rice; it acts as a leavening agent (ma'amid), structurally transforming the rice dough and allowing it to ferment. This physical transformation changes the identity of the rice: it is no longer just "rice," but has been elevated to the halakhic status of "bread" (lechem).
The Ohr Sameach's Analysis of the Yerushalmi
The Ohr Sameach[^6] dives deep into the Yerushalmi's debate between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (who requires a physical majority of wheat) and the Chachamim (who hold that taste alone suffices).
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ WHEAT-RICE MIXTURE OBLIGATION │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐
│ RAMBAM / CHACHAMIM│ │ RA'AVAD / RASHBAG │
│ (Qualitative/Taste) │ │ (Quantitative/Volume) │
└───────────┬───────────┘ └───────────┬───────────┘
│ │
├─► Flavor (Ta'am) transforms ├─► Requires physical
│ the identity of the rice. │ majority (Rov) of wheat.
│ │
└─► Rice is "dragged" (Nitpela) └─► Wheat must independently
and elevated to "Lechem". │ meet the minimum Shiur.
│
└─► Taste cannot generate
a positive obligation.
He explains that according to the Chachamim, whom the Rambam follows, the rice is considered secondary (nitpela) to the wheat. Because the wheat yeast gives the dough its structure and flavor, the entire mixture is treated as a single, unified grain dough.
The Ohr Sameach argues that this is a unique law of Challah: because the Torah defines the obligation based on the final product—"the bread of the land"—any substance that behaves like bread and tastes like bread becomes obligated under the definition of lechem.
3. The Mechanics of Containment (6:16-17)
If a person bakes multiple small loaves of bread, each below the minimum measure for Challah, how can they be combined to reach the obligated threshold? The Rambam rules that placing them together in a basket (sal) combines them into a single unit, whereas an oven does not.
The Steinsaltz Synthesis on Container Power
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz[^7] explains that the combining power of a vessel (keli) is a fundamental rule of Challah, derived from the verse, "When you eat of the bread of the land." This verse implies that the obligation is triggered when the bread is gathered together for consumption.
A basket is a vessel designed to gather finished food for storage or serving, making it a "unifying agent" (keli m'tzaref). An oven, by contrast, is a tool used for processing raw dough into bread; it does not represent the final gathering of food, and therefore cannot combine the loaves.
The Chazon Ish on Physical vs. Conceptual Unity
The Chazon Ish[^8] analyzes whether this unification is physical or conceptual. If the loaves do not touch, how does the basket combine them?
He argues that the basket creates a conceptual "room" (chadar). By placing the loaves inside a single container, the owner designates them as a single batch of food. This subjective designation, combined with the physical boundaries of the vessel, elevates the collection of small loaves into a single, obligated cheftza of bread.
Friction
Halakhic analysis thrives on resolving contradictions. Two major areas of friction emerge from the Rambam's rulings on Challah: the "Yeast Dilemma" and the "Convert's Partnership."
1. The Yeast Dilemma: The Challenge of Un-nullified Tevel
In Hilchot Bikkurim 8:11, the Rambam rules:
"הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ עִיסָה שֶׁהוּרְמָה... אִם אֵין לוֹ עִיסָה אַחֶרֶת, כָּל הָעִיסָה כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ חָלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַטֶּבֶל בְּמִינוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר."
The Kushya (Contradiction)
This ruling seems to contradict the basic laws of food mixtures (issur v'heter). If a small piece of unseparated yeast (tevel) is mixed into a large, permitted dough, why isn't it nullified by a majority (batel b'rov) or by sixty times its volume (batel b'shishim)?
Furthermore, the Rambam states that this is because tevel mixed with its own kind (min b'mino) is forbidden in any amount (b'chol shehu). But according to biblical law, even tevel should be nullified by a majority! Why did the Sages apply such a severe stringency here?
The Terutz (Resolution)
[Unseparated Yeast (Tevel) mixed into Permitted Dough]
│
▼
[Is it nullified? (Batel)?]
│
┌─────────┴─────────┐
▼ ▼
[Scriptural] [Rabbinic]
Batel b'rov No Nullification (Afilu b'elef lo batel)
(Nullified by majority) │
▼
[Reason: Devar She'yesh Lo Matirin]
The yeast can be permitted by separating Challah.
Therefore, the Sages forbid nullification.
To resolve this, we must look to the classic concept of a "forbidden item that can be permitted" (devar she'yesh lo matirin). The Gemara in Nedarim 58a teaches that if a forbidden substance can be made permitted through a halakhic action (such as separating tithes or untying a vow), the Sages did not allow it to be nullified by a majority. They argued: "Why rely on nullification to eat a forbidden substance when you can perform a mitzvah and eat it in complete permissibility?"
Because the owner can easily resolve the tevel status of the yeast by separating Challah, the yeast remains active and forbidden in any amount. However, this creates a secondary problem: if the yeast is not nullified, it renders the entire dough tevel.
How can the owner separate Challah from this mixed dough? He would be separating from a mixture of obligated yeast and exempt dough, which is normally forbidden!
The Rambam resolves this by advising the owner to bring a second dough that is completely unseparated. By placing the second dough next to the mixed dough, he can separate Challah from the second dough to cover both itself and the yeast in the mixture.
This elegant solution avoids the problem of separating from the exempt dough itself, demonstrating how the laws of tziruf (combination) can be used to resolve complex ritual issues.
2. The Convert's Partnership: Retroactive Exemptions
In Hilchot Bikkurim 8:10, the Rambam rules:
"גֵּר וְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בְּעִיסָה וְחָלְקוּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵּר הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְהוֹסִיף עַל חֶלְקוֹ וְהוֹסִיף הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֶלְקוֹ... חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּב, וְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל גֵּר פָּטוּר."
The Kushya (Contradiction)
The Ra'avad[^9] launches a fierce attack on this ruling. If the gentile partner converted and then added flour to his portion of the dough to reach the minimum measure (shiur), why is his dough exempt?
Before his conversion, his portion of the dough was exempt because it belonged to a gentile. But now that he is a Jew, and he is kneading new flour into the dough to reach the shiur, why shouldn't this be treated like any other dough kneaded by a Jew that was increased in size?
The Terutz (Resolution)
The Radbaz[^10] and the Kessef Mishneh[^11] rescue the Rambam by identifying a deep principle regarding the timing of halakhic obligations. They explain that we must look at the status of the dough at its "moment of potential obligation"—the kneading stage (gilgul).
[Gentile & Jew Partnership Dough]
│
▼ (Kneaded together)
[Moment of potential obligation (Gilgul)]
│
┌───────┴───────┐
▼ ▼
[Jew's Portion] [Gentile's Portion]
Below shiur, Exempt because owner
not exempted. is a gentile.
│ │
▼ (Post-division: Both add flour to reach shiur)
│ │
[Jew's Dough] [Convert's Dough]
OBLIGATED EXEMPT
(Never exempted (The original mass passed
at gilgul stage) gilgul in a state of exemption)
At the time of kneading, the dough was owned in partnership.
- The Jew's portion was below the minimum measure, meaning it was not yet obligated, but it was also never formally exempted. When the Jew later adds flour to reach the shiur, he is completing a process that was never defined as exempt.
- The gentile's portion, however, was owned by a non-Jew at the moment of kneading. This means it was formally excluded from the mitzvah of Challah based on the verse, "the first of your dough"—excluding the dough of a gentile.
The Rambam's core principle is that a dough that has already passed through the kneading stage in a state of formal exemption cannot have its obligation re-awakened. Because the original mass of the convert's dough was exempted during gilgul, any subsequent additions of flour are considered secondary to an exempt base, leaving the entire dough exempt.
The Jew's dough, by contrast, was never exempted; its obligation was merely dormant due to its small size, and it is activated as soon as the size is completed.
Intertext
To fully appreciate the Rambam's codification, we must trace these concepts to their biblical roots and see how they are applied in later halakhic codes like the Shulchan Aruch.
[Numbers 15:20] ──► "Reshit arisotekhem" (First of your dough)
│
▼
[Pesachim 48a-b] ──► Mechanics of "Sal" (Basket) vs. "Tanur" (Oven)
│
▼
[Rambam Bikkurim 6 & 8] ──► Codification of conceptual "Chibur" (Unity)
│
▼
[Shulchan Aruch YD 324-325] ──► Practical boundaries of modern baking
1. Biblical Foundations & Talmudic Development
The mitzvah of Challah is introduced in Numbers 15:20:
"רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסֹתֵיכֶם חַלָּה תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה..."
The word arisotekhem (your doughs) is plural, which the Sages in Eruvin 83b use to derive the minimum measure of flour required for Challah. They compare the "first of your dough" to the portion of manna gathered by each individual in the wilderness, which was one omer per person (as recorded in Exodus 16:16). This establishes the biblical shiur of Challah as one omer of flour, which the Rambam calculates as equivalent to the volume of 43.2 eggs.
The mechanism of combining small loaves to reach this omer measure is debated in Pesachim 48a-b. The Gemara discusses whether the loaves must physically touch, or if placing them in a single vessel (keli) is sufficient.
The Sages introduce the concept of meshiyat hakeilim (the gathering of vessels), proving that a basket (sal) has the halakhic power to unify its contents into a single entity. The Rambam codifies this as an objective law of containment, elevating the sal from a simple storage tool to a halakhic unifier.
2. Codification in the Shulchan Aruch
The rulings of the Rambam serve as the foundation for the laws of Challah in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324–325).
Shulchan Aruch YD 324:9 (The Rice-Wheat Mixture)
The Mechaber (Rabbi Yosef Karo) rules in accordance with the Rambam:
"עיסה מעורבת מחמשת מיני דגן ודברים אחרים... אם יש בה טעם דגן חייבת בחלה." (A dough mixed from the five species of grain and other substances... if it has the flavor of grain, it is obligated in Challah.)
The Shach[^12] notes that while the Rambam's ruling is codified as law, one should ideally separate Challah without a blessing if there is not a clear majority of grain, out of respect for the Ra'avad's quantitative critique.
Shulchan Aruch YD 325:1 (The Power of the Basket)
The Shulchan Aruch codifies the laws of the basket combining small loaves:
"הסל מצרף את הלחם לחלה... ואפילו אינם נוגעים זה בזה." (The basket combines the bread for Challah... even if the loaves do not touch each other.)
The Rema[^13] adds a crucial practical detail: if the loaves are placed on a table and covered with a single cloth, the cloth acts like a basket and combines them. This demonstrates how the conceptual definition of containment has expanded from rigid wooden vessels to any temporary wrapping that designates the loaves as a single batch.
Psak/Practice
The conceptual debates of the Rishonim have direct, practical applications in modern kitchens and commercial bakeries.
1. The Modern "Sal" (Basket) in Home Baking
When baking for large events or weekly Shabbat meals, home bakers often prepare multiple small loaves that are individually below the shiur of Challah, but collectively exceed it. How should they separate Challah?
[Multiple Small Loaves (Each below shiur)]
│
▼
[How to combine them to separate Challah?]
│
┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[Physical Contact] [Spatial Containment]
Press the doughs together Place all baked loaves inside:
so they touch and stick - A single box or basket
(Neshika) before baking. - A single bag
- Under a single tablecloth
│
▼
[OBLIGATED WITH A BLESSING]
- The Practical Solution: To trigger the obligation with a blessing, the baker must combine the loaves after baking. This can be done by placing all the finished loaves inside a single container (such as a cardboard box, laundry basket, or large bag) or by placing them on a counter and covering them completely with a single tablecloth.
- The Halakhic Mechanism: This action uses the Rambam's concept of tziruf (combination). By gathering the loaves under a single cover, the baker creates a temporary "container" that elevates the individual loaves into a single, obligated batch of bread.
2. High-Volume Commercial Production
In commercial bakeries, large batches of dough are kneaded in giant industrial mixers, but are immediately divided into small rolls or loaves before baking.
- The Halakhic Rule: Because the dough was kneaded as a single mass that exceeded the shiur, the obligation of Challah is established at the kneading stage (gilgul). Even if the dough is immediately divided into thousands of tiny rolls, the bakery must separate Challah with a blessing.
- The Baker's Action: The Challah must be separated from the dough before it is divided and baked, ensuring that the holy gift is taken from the unified mass when the obligation is strongest.
3. The Frozen Dough Conundrum
With the rise of commercial frozen dough products, a new question has emerged: if a company kneads a massive batch of dough, divides it into individual portions, and freezes them to be sold and baked by consumers at home, who is obligated to separate Challah?
- The Consumer's Dilemma: When the consumer thaws and bakes a single loaf of frozen dough, it is well below the shiur of Challah. Does the original kneading at the factory obligate this single loaf, or is it exempt because it is baked as a small portion?
- The Halakhic Psak: Modern poskim (such as the Minchat Yitzchak[^14]) rule that if the factory divided the dough with the explicit intent that it be baked in small portions by individual consumers, the large batch is exempt from Challah at the factory.
- Because the dough was never intended to be baked as a single, unified mass, the obligation never solidified. The home consumer is also exempt, because the individual loaf they are baking is below the required measure.
- To avoid this loophole, major kosher food companies ensure that Challah is separated at the factory during the initial kneading, preserving the integrity of the mitzvah.
Takeaway
The mitzvah of Challah is not merely an agricultural tax, but a conceptual transformation: through the physical act of kneading and the subjective power of human intent, ordinary grain is elevated to become "the bread of the land" and a holy gift for the priesthood.
[^1]: Kessef Mishneh on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:1. [^2]: Radbaz on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:1. [^3]: Ohr Sameach on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:1. [^4]: Hasagot Ha-Ra'avad on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:11. [^5]: Kessef Mishneh on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:11. [^6]: Ohr Sameach on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:11. [^7]: Steinsaltz Commentary on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 6:16. [^8]: Chazon Ish, Yoreh De'ah 195:3. [^9]: Hasagot Ha-Ra'avad on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 8:10. [^10]: Radbaz on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 8:10. [^11]: Kessef Mishneh on Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim 8:10. [^12]: Siftei Cohen (Shach) on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 324, S"K 9. [^13]: Hagahot Ha-Rema on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 325:1. [^14]: Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak, Vol. 10, Siman 102.
derekhlearning.com