Menachos 67

Today's daf is Menachos daf samech zayin and we are at the very top of daf samech zayin amud aleph gilgul hekdesh. So, the context of today's daf is what it's been since the beginning of the perek and that is the korban omer. The korban omer was a korban mincha, that's why it's discussed in detail in maseches Menachos and as we've seen it had a significance in that the korban omer, which was brought on tes zayin Nissan, was matir the tfuah chadasha. So, the Yidden would literally wait with bated breath for this korban omer to be brought and as soon as the korban omer was brought, they were allowed to eat from the tfuah chadasha. Now, the Torah in parshas Emor details exactly how the korban omer was brought and some of the ceremony that surrounded it. But, the first thing that happened was Kohanim on motzei, the first night of Pesach, would go into the field, they would harvest some tfuah, they would bring it into the Beis Hamikdash and um from that a korban mincha was brought. And the Mishnah daf samech vov amud aleph discusses what happened with the remainder of the tfuah that wasn't used for the korban omer. Did it have kedusha? What exactly was done with it? And the Mishnah said that it's a machlokes the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Akiva. V'hashayar niftar v'ne'echel chulin, says the Mishnah. In terms of the leftover of the korban omer, it was redeemed and once it was redeemed, it was allowed to be eaten by anybody, meaning even Yisrael, not only zichrei kehuna. Stating that, v'chayev b'chulin u'patur min hama'aser. Rabbi Akiva mechayev b'chulin u'v'ma'aser. So, it was a machlokes tannaim exactly how to treat this tfuah after it was already redeemed. The Tanna Kamma says that it certainly was chayav in chulin like old eisal, like old tfuah is chayav in chulin. However, u'patur min hama'aser. There's not going to be a chiyuv ma'aser. Rabbi Akiva said, v'chayev b'chulin u'v'ma'aser. Gemara in daf samech vov amud beis had a detailed discussion what exactly the makor, why does it that Akiva holds that khaya the master and really the the premise of this discussion is that there's a of Israel and this is really true is one on one and that is that is part of so what's we know that once upon a time certainly this bunch of certainly by a person had a field to work on his field he wasn't allowed to eat from the until he gave his taxes true more my sir my sir my sir my sir etc etc If a person would eat from the without being true he violated it very as a matter of fact the says Mesa me day show my stating that a person was only true to my sister so once the of the was deemed to have been completed when it was considered to have been that's when it was true to my sister me before it was true there was no true to my sister me what's the definition of my sister so I was definition was me was the of smoothing the heat of that was in the field when that happened it was considered that the was already complete and as a result they'd be a true to my sister me before that there's not going to be a true to my sister me the law is that if owns and the of the took place when it was of somebody else goes now and buys that from he doesn't have a to be true to my sister and the reason is because he is part there me my sister suggested that the that says that if somebody would now be the leftover of the that wasn't used for the carbon the reason to be part of presumably because it's and it's part of that's the case me that me says there is a true to my sister argued Rav Kahana the Gemara, he would seem to be a daas yachid. He would seem to argue with this halacha that everybody seems to know, and he would seem to be the opinion that even though the miruach took place in the reshus of hekdesh, he's chayav min hamayis. Rav Kahana walked into Beis Medrash and he said that even though everybody knows miruach hekdesh is patur min hamayis. I think this is shittas Rebbi Akiva, which has implications cuz halacha Rebbi Akiva mechaveirui mechaveirav. But if this is Rebbi Akiva, then then this is very very important. Rebbi Akiva holds that even though the miruach of this leftover tzuah took place in the reshus of hekdesh, still there's a chiyuv tumas mayis. But the Gemara says that that's not pshat in Rebbi Akiva. In fact, Rebbi Akiva himself said that that's not pshat in Rebbi Akiva. And pshat in Rebbi Akiva has nothing to do with miruach hekdesh. Akiva holds miruach hekdesh is patur min hamayis. But over here, the money that was used for the tzuah was given al tenai, and the tenai was that whatever's going to be used for the korban ayin should have hekdesh. Whatever's not going to be used for the korban ayin should not be treated as hekdesh. It shouldn't have its kedusha. And it's for that reason that there's going to be a chiyuv mayis regardless. So the Gemara mentioned the halacha of miruach hekdesh, which at the end of the day, the maskana of the Gemara, everybody holds is patur min hamayis. So the Gemara went from there and digressed for a moment and said, "What about miruach ovdei kochavim? What if a owns the tzuah and the miruach took place while it was in the reshus of a A yid now buys the tzuah from a Is he chayav or is he not chayav? Now, first glance you're going to tell me, if the owned the field and the crops grew in his sadah, why is there a chiyuv tumas mayis in the first place?" It's a good question, but really it's a sugya in Shas. The Gemara in a few places discusses where the yesh king in beha'avdei kochavim nafkei min hamayis. So clearly this discussion assumes that just because a owns the field doesn't mean there's no chiyuv tumas mayis. So the question is, if a owns a field and the miruach took place in a goy's field, and now a yid buys it from a so do you say just like miruach hekdesh is patur, miruach ovdei kochavim as well? Or maybe not? And here the Gemara said it's machlokes tanayim. Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah both hold that miruach ovdei kochavim is chayav tumas mayis. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon hold that miruach ovdei kochavim is patur mitrumas umaaser. So Miruach, hektish, everybody agrees is patur. Miruach over the kekhavim is machlokes tanoyim. Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehuda both hold chayav. Rebbi Yitzchak Shimon both hold patur. The topic of today's daf is going to be challah. Now, challah is to dough what trumah is to t'vuah. So just like the Torah says, "Reishis degoncha", you have to go and be mafresh, give to the kohanim. And it has kedusha. And if he eats it and doesn't give it to the kohen, he's chayav misas bidei Shamayim. If he is mafresh it, so now it's trumah and then he eats it, he's also chayav misas bidei Shamayim. You have very similar halachos as it relates to dough. The Torah says, "Reishis arisosichem", the reishis of your dough has to be given to a kohen. If you eat it without giving it to a kohen, misas bidei Shamayim, it's tevel. If you mafresh it, eat it then, you're also going to be chayav misas bidei Shamayim. The point is that challah is to dough what trumah is to t'vuah. And just like as it relates to t'vuah, you're not chayavin trumah mid'oraysa until it's nigmar melachto. Miruach, the same is true by challah. The gmar melacha as it relates to challah is what's known as gilgul. And the Gemara now brings that Rava discussed what would be the halachos of gilgul hektish and gilgul over the kekhavim. Meaning, miruach hektish we said everybody holds is patur min hamaisros. Miruach over the kekhavim is machlokes Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehuda on the one hand, Rebbi Yitzchak Shimon on the other hand. The question is what about gilgul? Gilgul hektish and gilgul over the kekhavim, says the Gemara. Gilgul hektish patur. Gilgul hektish is patur min achalah. D'tnyan, it's a mefuresh mishnah. If he eats it also actually, gilgul of somebody was maktish his dough. So a person had dough and he said, "I want to give it to hektish." And it was before he did the gilgul. Meaning, there was no challah. Who bought this and then he was parted. Also before he ever did the Gilgal and now he rolls it and he's making challah and he has a shaila. Do I have to be mafresh challah or not? The law is chayaves. He's certainly going to be chayav. And the reason is because even though it was hekdesh for a short period of time, but at the time that the chiyuv challah went into effect, which is at the time of the Gilgal, it belonged to the hedyot. He had been parted. And as a result, the chiyuv challah went into effect at a time that it wasn't hekdeshes. Thus, he's chayav in challah. Mishnah Gilgal what would be if somebody owned dough, he was megulgal the dough, so that he's chayav in challah, and then he was maktish it. Who bought this and he was parted. And now he bakes it. He wants to know do I have to be mafresh challah? Also chayaves. Because here too the Gilgal happened before you were maktish it. It happened in the reshus of hedyot. As a result, you're chayav in challah. Kidusha actually Gilgal what would be if somebody was maktish his dough before the Gilgal. The Gilgal of the gizbar. And then the gizbar hekdesh went ahead and was megulgal. So and then he was parted. Patura. The Mishnah says very clearly because in this case at the time that the chiyuv challah went into effect, it belonged to hekdesh. And as a result, Gilgal hekdesh is patur min challah. So Rava said it's meforesh. Just like Gilgal just like meruach hekdesh is patur min ma'aser, so too Gilgal hekdesh is patur min challah. What's the law regarding Gilgal of the kikar? Now, first we'll see. Rava is going to say it's really meforesh in Mishnah as well. But the essence of Rava's shaila is not whether you can find a source that Gilgal of the kikar should be patur min challah, but rather do we say that just like by meruach of the kikar, it's a machlokes tanan and there's a sheet that says Reb Meir and Rebbi Yehudah that holds that meruach of the kikar is chayav in ma'aser, perhaps Reb Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are going to hold that Gilgal of the kikar is going to be chayav as well. And the Gemara explains. Really it's a Mishnah. Mishnah tonight. Gershon is kiyer also Maseches Challah. Twice he used the kiyer of Rebbi Gershon. And he had dough. So person was megulgal. he had a pantry full of food. And one of the things he had was dough. Now, it says to this guy if he had prepared this dough, meaning he did the gilgul of the dough before he became a guy. The law is potter, he's going to be potter. Because it was gilgul of a guy. Misha says if he did the gilgul after he became a guy, so if he's not sure when he did the gilgul, before the guy or after the guy, he's going to be high. Bottom line, who is the tana of the mishna? That was Rava and Shmuel. Meaning, it's in the mishna that gilgul of a guy is going to be potter. But his shaila was who's the tana of the mishna? What did the tana of Divrei HaYomim say? The tana of the mishna everybody that feels that the tana of the mishna holds that even they hold that gilgul of a guy they too hold that gilgul of a guy is potter. What's the swara? And Rava said I'll explain it to you. Hasm over there by truma, it says the guy said it says twice in the Torah the guy that you have to be mafresh truma and maaser from your dough. Now, the guy seems to suggest the dough of a guy not the dough of a guy. But being that it says the guy twice, have you heard mute? What's a double negative? A positive. They heard Rava said Rava that holds that holds that maaser I know is the guy and now that it says by truma and maaser. So, I have a by truma and maaser that gilgul of a guy is going to be high. I have a law when it comes to challah, maybe even Rava and Shmuel are going to hold it's potter. Because although it says even though it says it twice here too, it says twice, but I need the two times that it says that it says because once I needed to teach me what the challah is. We'll see a little bit more about that in a moment. The challah that it says and the other I need to tell me the guy not the guy. Not the guy. Follow what it says exactly. and also not the e-server guy. But the bottom line is rubber argued that it could be this mission or this dumb mission of Masochist Hollow that says that the e-server of a guy is in is parted from Hollow. Maybe it's going even going to remain cuz even though remain rubber Hollow that mirror of Hollow is Hollow in truma maseras but maybe there's a difference between mirror meaning truma and gilgo meaning Hollow. And what's the svaro the macar? I have a macar to be mirror I don't have a macar to be e-server fact I have anything mute as it relates to e-server cuz I only have one research and my research was in to suggest that the e-server not the e-server guy. I don't know what I said. I'm not sure. Maybe not. Maybe maybe this mission of Masochist Hollow is going to maybe that Hollow that mirror of Hollow is parted. So to gilgo Hollow is going to be parted as well. I don't know maybe maybe going to be we just said very nicely that they have a macar to be the truma of a guy in truma they don't have a macar to be the e-server of a guy in Hollow. If anything they have a mirror but races says maybe they learn races races may also says races by races and it says races by truma races says just like mirror of Hollow is Hollow in truma maybe e-server the gilgo of a guy is going to be Hollow in Hollow as well. And the says that was Hollow and Hollow concluded he said Hollow the Hollow. He said I I don't know that I should have a dream and in my dream it should be told to me what exactly the Hollow is. Either way the says Hollow Hollow who initially wasn't sure later as the Gamorah so often says, there's always a before and after in Gamorah. Meaning, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon are going to hold that Gilgul of Challah is Patur as well. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah hold that Challah is not Patur. Gilgul of Challah is Patur. Meaning, Rabbi had it sad to say that the Mishna of Maseches Challah that says Gilgul of Challah is Patur is going to apply to everybody, even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah, as if to say there's a Chiluk between Trumah and Challah. Trumah and Challah is not Chiluk. Trumah and Challah is all one and the same. So, what's the bottom line? The bottom line is Miruach Hektish is Patur. So, if somebody buys Trumah from Hektish, Hektish owns the field, they have crops, the Miruach took place in the reshus of Hektish. Now, they sold it to a a Yid, it was Niftar, like in our Mishna here in Maseches Menachos, somebody went ahead and he bought now this Trumah from Hektish, it doesn't have to be Mafresh Trumah and Ma'aser. Because the Halacha that Miruach of Hektish is Patur from Trumah and Ma'aser. The same is true as it relates to Challah. If somebody would buy dough from Hektish, Hektish did the Gilgul or the Gilgul took place while it was in the reshus of Hektish. Now, a Yid a head Yid owns it, doesn't have to be Mafresh Challah because Gilgul of Gilgul Hektish is also Patur from a Challah. What about a If a owns Trumah in Eretz Yisrael, or if a owns dough, and he did the Miruach or the Miruach took place when it was in the reshus of the or the Gilgul took place while it was in the reshus of the is there a Chiyuv Trumah and Ma'aser and Challah respectively? It's a Machlokes Tana'im. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah, yes, Mid'Oraisa. According to Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon, the answer is going to be no. Just one interesting thing that when I can speak about today's Daf is hashtag no raid. But Rabbi said Rabbi Akiva says, I daven that I should have a a dream and in the dream they should tell me exactly what the law of remain with you Buddha is. What their sheet was regarding Google over the this is an interesting tomorrow many fronts. Number one could even rely on a dream. Somebody has a dream and in his dream that my God or something to him doesn't even mean anything. The dreams are full of so if somebody has a dream from a standpoint can you even rely on what it was that was told to you in a dream. So we have a bite on this angel of dreams. I think that's what it's called but really it's you do it is a a famous true or from the Kagan going to but it's a famous with the says when it comes to dreams there's two there's some dreams that are real and there's some dreams that are fake. And being that it's impossible for a person to know whether a dream is real or fake so there's a of and the said so when it comes to so when it comes to moments moment of all of it's a fascinating we have a bite on it. We've spoken about it many times in the past but that's the first thing. So could you rely on a dream? I mean there's many contradictions. On the one hand there seem to be tomorrow that suggest that there are married to dreams tomorrow that suggest there's no married to dreams. The says some yes some not it depends on if it's through the if it's not through the the bottom line is at the end of the day it's going to be a a as it relates to the second thing as far as dreams goes is you have to know in general whether you can rely on the that comes from a dream meaning okay a dream has married to it but from a standpoint what we know tomorrow probably as a and the is so from a standpoint the third interesting thing that we're not going to speak about is is that it the modern comes to mind is the modern para korah where the modern talks about rubber and his dreams. So rubber and a bio, you know, in addition to all the similarities that you have with a bio and rubber throughout times, they even used to dream the same dreams. And the modern says they used to go to a place where his name was parhedia and parhedia used to be poiser rubber's dream one way, a bio's dream another way. The bottom line is that's another thing that we would have to go through regardless of the modern by the eighth sphere of popular of rubber pop as rubber shank becomes fish better come on. If you can have them, so this is a non-Jew who had a firstborn donkey and he was my fish as the Torah says. He was my fish a better come on. The halo or it was my fish halo. The halo here is my dear and I say show me your partner. You have to notify him that he's part of the halo. So the halo is our miss halo has no condition. The better halo goes everybody. His better halo has no condition. You can do whatever you want with it. Now the halo makes an interesting dig. It sounds a little bit from here that this halo, this is the first time this true miss relates only to better halo and the halo. I would say it is a sura. It sounds like it is related to this true miss. The true miss is going to be awesome. The better halo has no condition. The halo has no condition. But his true miss it sounds like does have condition. So it's the modern by a ton of true miss halo and a pop. So clearly the ton of is related to be doing all the true miss halo and a pop is not part of doing with a guy. And if there's a true miss that means true miss halo and a pop is not part of the true miss. But at the same time what does the mission say or the first time say? Say the Google of halo and a pop is fighter. So you see that there's a distinction between true miss and halo which was one of rubber's thought him. Meaning you see that even remain rubber holder that hold that mirror of a guy is high of a true miss holds that the Google of a guy is part of from halo. The problem is rubber came out not like that. So it was one of rubber's good student. But how do I rubber not that way? Another question rubber is very rubber. Halo and a pop him the errors is true. And this is also a Tosefta in Maseches Challah. So, a lot of zero in Challah that you take olive oil and the two masses of Challah. So, if a has Challah in Eretz Israel or a has two masses of Challah, maybe in Eretz Israel we tell him that this is silly, you're a The mayor of Challah sowing in Challah in zero in the two masses in the masses of Challah getting beat in my zone is two masses of gets mixed up in the with Challah, nothing to worry about. Nothing to worry makes a very obvious deed. Hot two masses of Eretz Israel it sounds like his two masses of Eretz Israel would be awesome in the masses. And if you'll be mixed up in the two masses will be a problem. So, let's go with the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of the kind of came out. How do all my rather that there is no difference between Challah and between two masses of and whoever holds that two masses of Challah is going to hold two masses of Challah in the masses. Here you see before that according to the main Challah the Challah based on the two masses of these two masses of the two masses of two masses of the two masses of Challah that there is a difference between two masses of and two masses of the two masses of two masses of two masses of says to answer both of these prices you have to say two masses of Challah that is true we have the two masses of two masses of two masses of that the two of a is going to be Challah in two masses and it's clear that both of those prices hold that the two masses of a is not going to be Challah in the masses. So, we're going that two masses of and two masses of is Challah it sounds like it's a Challah in the masses cuz it sounds like even the main Challah who are the ones that hold that the two masses of a is Challah hold the two masses of but the main says no that when it's the this dick, when it's mefur in this braysa, that the t'vuah of a is not mid'oraisa, it's only mid'rabbanan. And everybody holds mid'rabbanan it's going to be chayiv. Even Rabi meaning Rabi Shimon that said that the meruach of a is not on the d'oraisa level, but mid'rabbanan it's going to be chayiv." So, really the mishna is not remain Rabi Yehudah because if the mishna was remain Rabi Yehudah, then there'd be no difference between the challah and between the trumah. And just like it's mefur in the tasefta that there's a chiyuv trumah on the goy's t'vuah, it would have been mefur that there's a chiyuv challah on the goy's eyses as well. From the fact that it's the braysa say that there is no chiyuv challah, clearly we're going against Rabi Shimon. If we're going against Rabi Shimon, the dik the dik is that it's mashma that the t'vuah is chayiv after the t'vuah has to be patur. It's only a chiyuv mid'rabbanan because of kisin. And Rashi says, "We're worried about people that are very very wealthy, and they have a lot of t'vuah, and they're trying to circumvent, they're looking for a tax loophole. So, if they know that the meruach of a is patur in the ma'aser, what they're going to do is they're going to find a make him a partner, or do something with the to somehow circumvent the laws of trumah and ma'aser." The Chachamim said that you're not going to get away with it. A meruach is going to be chayiv in trumah and ma'aser. But really we're going to hold that meruach is patur, not remain Rabi Yehudah patur, and that's why there's a ptur of challah as well. The Chachamim were gozer when it came to trumah and ma'aser, clearly they weren't gozer when it comes to challah. And therefore the Gemara asks the obvious question, "Why would the Chachamim only gozer about trumah? Why weren't they gozer about challah?" So, the Gemara says, "Efsher the afilu pachus michameshes revavah because challah is very easy to circumvent anyways. You don't need to make this takanah to prevent because even with this takanah you can get away with it. Because the only time you're chayiv in challah is if you bake it a certain shiur. You need a certain shiur of dough in order to be chayiv in challah. What's the shiur? Incidentally, it's 43 and 1/5 eggs. The Shach famously says that it's the gematria of challah. The gematria of challah is 43, and the hey at the end is the the fifth. But regardless, it's 43 and 1/5. And being that it's easy to circumvent it anyways, the ham didn't have to impose this here. But the gemara says, if that's the case, trumah and ma'aser double up with issue. It's not so hard to circumvent trumah either. There were some easy loopholes in the system as it related to trumah as well. And the gemara mentions two. Number one, rebeishia. Don't rebeishia matter of what we say or machnisah b'meichilah. And there's a big shaila in the Rishonim. Rashi himself says two pshatim exactly what this means. But partially, if a person would take the trumah into his house while still in its shaft, which is really not the way humans eat trumah. It's the way beheimos eat trumah. Then it gets treated as ma'achal beheima, and it's patur min ham'aiseros. Even later, when you remove it from its shaft, it's still going to be patur from ma'aser. K'dei she yiv'amtu yochlu min ham'aiseros. So you could always do that. You could always circumvent it. You don't need a a non-Jewish partner. There's another way to do it. Inami d'ilo derech gagos derech k'fifos. Another way to say it is, you can bring it into your house derech gagos and k'fifos. And we know the halacha is, you're only chayav if you bring it, you know, k'derech hamelach. But if you bring it in in such a way, then you're going to be patur. So what are you telling me that we had to make this takanah to say that even though miruach chachomim mid'dei rishus patur min ham'aiseros, but you're going to have to be chayav because we're afraid somebody's going to try to circumvent trumah and ma'aser? Because he's to to so that he should because he has his big business he's going to want to get away with it. So they said, "No, we're not going to let you." But we didn't do it by challah because by challah there's another way out. By trumah there's two other ways out. But the gemara says no. The eitzah is by trumah and the eitzah by challah is very different. Chasan b'farhesya, zila b'meilus. The two eitzos as it relates to trumah is b'farhesya. It's out in your field. People see you coming, you're climbing in through your chimney, derech gagos derech k'fifos. So it's b'farhesya. People aren't going to be so inclined to do it. As a result, it's much easier to work out a deal with a non-Jew. That's why the said that even if rises partly going to be but what goes on in your kitchen nobody really knows. So the dough which is something that happens so if you're going to have the over here to that it's a good and as a result it wasn't necessary to make this that the is going to be but they rise that's part of there's no reason they're about to make it as a result of the topic of today is which is really a digression from the digression was and Google meaning what belongs to either or or dough that belongs to either or as it relates to it's easy even though it was a little bit of a discussion and but it's very straightforward. The bottom line is is that if owns a field and the took place while the was still a Jew buys it it doesn't have to be or or the same is true if owns dough the dough was rolled while it was in the of a Jew buys it now doesn't have to be because is part of or and is part of or as well. What about so that's a little bit more complicated. As it relates to or or and or both that owns a field in Israel the is king and doesn't have an ability to be the of the field and as a result there is technically a or or and if the took place even in the it doesn't matter there's still or or hold there is no or or what about regarding so there's a there are prices that seem to very very clearly suggest that challah, the dough that's in the possession of a if a and the go to place while it's in the possession of a if you buys it later, is he potur? What Rava wasn't sure was is that Mishnah and those braysas by challah going back and going to Rebbi Shimon that hold that a goy's tools are chayev ma'aser, it's according to those shitas that a goy's dough is not going to be chayev challah as well. Or maybe even Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah that hold that a goy's field is chayev trumah and ma'aser, maybe they're going to agree that it's only trumah and ma'aser. It's not going to be challah. The Gemara said, "Hold on my Rava, Rava came around." And Rava said there's no difference. There's no way to make a chelek between challah and trumah and ma'aser. So according to Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah that hold that a goy's field is chayev trumah and ma'aser, so too a goy's dough is going to be chayev. It's only Rebbi Shimon that hold that a goy's field is potur from trumah and ma'aser that a goy's goy's dough is going to be potur from challah as well. Stating that, what emerged from the Gemara was that even Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon who hold that a goy's tool is potur from trumah and ma'aser only at a de rabbinan level. But de rabbinan, meaning mid rabbinan, a goy's dough is still going to be potur from challah, but a goy's field is going to be chayev in trumah and ma'aser. At the end of the day, even Rava has to concede that there is a difference between trumah and challah. However, not on the de rabbinan level. Most of the Gemara is on the de rabbinan level. What's the difference? The difference is is because if a person had a big business and a lot of trumah and ma'aser to give, knowing that if a is a shutaf, he somehow is potur from trumah and ma'aser, he would be incentivized to be marim on trumah and ma'aser which would come at the loss of the of the kayarim and the leviim and that's something that we try preventing. And even though there's other forms of harama, but the Gemara says this is the best form of harama. But for challah, there's easier ways to be marim and therefore, a person would never be incentivized to do this. Thus, there was no reason to make such a gezaira.