one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 7:14), and the word “one” indicates that it must be a whole loaf, i.e., that one should not take a broken piece, and here the bread has not been properly baked, it might therefore have been thought that it is considered as though it were broken. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that this is nevertheless classified as bread.

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to me’isa, dough that was boiled in water, Beit Shammai exempt one from separating ḥalla, and Beit Hillel obligate one to do so. As for dough that has undergone the process of ḥalita, Beit Shammai obligate one to separate ḥalla from it, and Beit Hillel exempt. The Gemara asks: What is me’isa and what is ḥalita? The Gemara explains: Me’isa is dough prepared by pouring flour on boiling water [muglashin], whereas ḥalita is formed by pouring boiling water on flour.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: From both this, me’isa, and that, ḥalita, one is exempt from separating ḥalla. And some say that he said: With regard to both this and that, one is obligated to separate ḥalla. And the Rabbis say: With regard to both this and that, if one prepared them in a pot, he is exempt from the mitzva of ḥalla; however, if he prepared the bread in an oven, he is obligated to separate ḥalla.

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who taught that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to these two cases, what is different about me’isa and what is different about ḥalita? Why do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel reverse their opinions with regard to these types of bread? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and likewise Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: As is the dispute with regard to this type of bread, so is the dispute with regard to that one; i.e., Beit Hillel are either lenient or stringent in both cases. And the variation in the baraita is due to a break in its text, which is actually a combination of two sources, because he who taught this baraita did not teach that one, as the two statements were taught by different Sages.

The Gemara now states the objection: In any event, the baraita is teaching that the Rabbis say: With regard to both this and that, me’isa and ḥalita, if one prepared them in a pot he is exempt from the mitzva of ḥalla, but if he prepared them in an oven he is obligated to separate ḥalla. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who claims that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from bread cooked in a pot. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from me’isa and ḥaluta; therefore, the verse states “bread” to inform us that this is not the case.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Bread is nothing other than that which is baked in an oven. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna. Rather, is it not the case that the practical difference between them is in the case of bread prepared as pot-boiled stew? The first tanna maintains that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, unlike bread prepared by me’isa and ḥalita. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Similar to me’isa and ḥalita, one is exempt from separating ḥalla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, as it was not baked in an oven.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees that the owner of bread prepared as pot-boiled stew is exempt from ḥalla, and here they disagree with regard to a case where one subsequently baked it in the oven. The first tanna maintains that since one subsequently baked it in the oven, it is called bread, and one must separate ḥalla from it. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that bread is nothing other than that which is initially baked in an oven, and since this food was not initially baked in an oven, it is not classified as bread.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “And ten women shall bake your bread in one oven” (Leviticus 26:26). Rava learns from this verse that bread baked in one oven is called bread, and that which is not baked in one oven, but rather in several different vessels, is not called bread.

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat behind Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Zeira sat before Ulla to hear him teach Torah. Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Raise the following dilemma of Ulla: If one pasted bread inside a pot and heated it from the outside, what is the halakha? Is one obligated to separate ḥalla from this bread? He said to him: Why should I say this question to Ulla? For if I say this to him, he will say to me: What is the halakha with regard to bread prepared as pot-boiled stew? In other words, he will reply that my question is effectively the same as that well-known case.

Rav Yosef further said to Rabbi Zeira: Raise the following dilemma of Ulla: If one pasted bread inside a pot and lit a torch opposite it, what is the halakha? He again said to him: Why should I say this question to Ulla? As if I say this to him, he will say to me: The majority of poor people do this when they use a pot for cooking, and therefore this too should be considered the same as bread prepared like pot-boiled stew.

Rav Asi said: With regard to dough of second-tithe produce, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, one is exempt from separating ḥalla from it. The reason is that Rabbi Meir considers second tithe to be consecrated property, which means that although its owner is entitled to use this produce, it does not in fact belong to him. By contrast, in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, who maintain that second-tithe produce is the property of its owner, one is obligated to separate ḥalla from it.