abun

We have stated about this, “three or four qab,” hence two qab go by one in 24. “In truth;” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. And we stated about this, for example a qab or half a qab.Hence, two qab go by a quarter. Here you say, two qab by a quarter, and there you say, two qab by one in 24. Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna; one says, nine qab, the other says, eight qab.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two) kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see the difference between the early and the late statements of Rebbi Ismael! He started out with a bet kor and ended up with a bet seah́!

Rebbi Abun and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath!

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

“ It turns out that concerning kilaim everything less than three hand-breadths is considered closed. From three to four, if what is standing is more than what is torn down it is permitted, but if what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is forbidden. From four hand-breadths to ten cubits, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted; but if what is torn down is more than what is standing it is permitted where it is standing, forbidden where it is torn down. Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three hand-breadths is considered closed. From three to four, and from four hand-breadths to ten cubits, it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with reeds,” does a reed form a place? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

“Two gardens, one above the other, the lower one is made into a vineyard, the upper one is not made into a vineyard. One may sow the upper one until one reaches the airspace of ten.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the below? He said to him, because plants will bend into the airspace of the vineyard. “If the upper one is made into a vineyard but the lower one is not made into a vineyard, one may sow the lower one and the declivity until one reaches the roots of the vines.” Rebbi Yose said, one does not have here “the roots of the vines” but “below three [hand-breadths],” following that which was stated: “roots of madder that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”

There, we have stated: “One keeps seeds, the plough, and urine three hand-breadths away from a wall.” Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a question: There, you say that the roots do not expand sideways and here you say, the roots do expand sideways! Rebbi Yose said, in both cases the roots do not expand sideways but they create soft earth and undermine the base of the wall. You can see that because we also stated “urine”. Does urine expand sideways? Rebbi Yose the son of Rebbi Abun explained, did we not also state “the plough”? Does the plough expand sideways?

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah speaks of the space above the shoot. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that a vineyard has air space; a single vine has no air space. Since Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten, that means that even a single vine has air space.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah speaks of the space above the shoot. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that a vineyard has air space; a single vine has no air space. Since Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten, that means that even a single vine has air space.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is a fine imposed by Rebbi Meïr. Did he act on that, “if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain …”? But what did that person do? When it grows, it grows according to his intention. One person showed his tetradrachma to Rebbi Eleazar who told him that it was good. It turned out to be worthless. This case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him according to the following: If somebody shows a denar to the money-changer and it turns out to be bad, [the money-changer] has to pay because he takes a fee. Does Rebbi Eleazar take a fee? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna: One who takes it into his hand has the status of one who takes a fee. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so, but Rebbi Eleazar says that this fine is imposed by the rabbis; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says the fine is imposed by Rebbi Meïr. When the case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, he asked Rebbi Eleazar, who imposed this fine? He [Rebbi Eleazar] said, the rabbis. He [Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish] answered him, go and pay.

It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This teaches us that one is not guilty unless he sows two kinds in the vineyard, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Jonathan said, even one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19) “in your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, to make it sinful even with one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Josia, “in your field do not sow kilaim”; why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, as a warning. If he was warned about “your field”, he is whipped, if he was warned about “your vineyard”, he is whipped. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits. What are we talking about? If he made a fence on the inside, the vineyard is abolished. If he made a fence on the outside, that is the circumference. But we deal with a field that was a grain field and he cleared four cubits in its midst. This agrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said, nothing forbidden may form a separation to save. They were of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to prohibit. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19): “In your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard kilaim,” creating your vineyard do not sow kilaim.

“Scroll wraps.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Because he makes them into a kind of container and puts his Torah scroll on them. Rebbi Abba Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph in the name of Rav: Because he uses it to warm his hands. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Abba: Without that would it not be forbidden because of kilaim? He said to him, is not Rav the author? And Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Abba, and why did you not say to him that he removes it full. If he had said to him, would it not be forbidden for usufruct, what could you have said to him?

Rebbi dwelt in Sepphoris seventeen years and applied to himself (Gen. 47:28): “Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years,” Jehudah lived in Sepphoris seventeen years. Of these he suffered from toothache for thirteen years. {Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all these thirteen years no woman lying-in died in the Land of Israel and no pregnant woman had a miscarriage in the Land of Israel.} Why did he have a toothache? Once he saw a calf to be slaughtered when it bellowed and said to him, Rebbi, save me! He said to it, for that you were created. At the end, how was he healed? He saw them killing a burrow of rats. He said to them, let them live, it is written (Ps. 145:9) “His mercy extends to all His creatures.”

Rebbi was very meek and said, all a man might ask from me I am ready to do, except what the elders of Bathyra did for my ancestor: they divested themselves of their presidency and appointed him. If Rav Huna, the Head of the Diaspora, would come here I would let him sit higher than myself since he is from the tribe of Judah and I am from Benjamin, he is from the male line and I am from the female. Once, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya visited him and said, Rav Huna is outside. The face of Rebbi became saffron-colored. He [R. Ḥiyya] said to him, his coffin arrived. He [Rebbi] said to him, go outside and look who wants you there. He stepped outside and did not find anybody; he understood that he [Rebbi] was angry with him. He did not visit him again for thirty days. {Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, in those thirty days did Rav learn from him [R. Ḥiyya] the principles of Torah.} At the end of thirteen years and thirty days, Elijah visited him [Rebbi] in the likeness of the older Rebbi Ḥiyya. He said to him, how does my lord feel? He said to him, one tooth hurts me. He said to him, show it to me. He showed it to him, he put his finger on it and it was healed. The next day, the older Rebbi Ḥiyya came to him and asked him, how does Rebbi feel, what is with that tooth? He said to him, from the moment that you put your finger on it, it was healed. At that moment, he said, woe on you, lying-in women of the Land of Israel, woe on you, pregnant women of the Land of Israel! He [R. Ḥiyya] said to him, that was not me. From that moment on, he [Rebbi] treated him with honor. When he [Rebbi] went to the assembly hall, he said, may the older Rebbi Ḥiyya come inside. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose asked, closer than me? He said, beware! The older Rebbi Ḥiyya inside, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose innermost. Rebbi used to state the praises of the older Rebbi Ḥiyya before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Once, he [R. Ismael ben R. Yose] saw him [R. Ḥiyya] in the bathhouse and he did not show him reverence. He [R. Ismael ben R. Yose] said to him [Rebbi], is that the one of whom you state praises? He said, what did he do to you? He said, I saw him in the bathhouse and he did not show me reverence. He [Rebbi] said to him [R. Ḥiyya], why did you do that? He said to him, so much should come over me if I realized that I was washing myself, at that time my eyes were occupied with the allegorical interpretation of the entire book of Psalms. From that moment on, he [Rebbi] appointed two students to accompany him [R. Ḥiyya] to watch out for him.

Regarding the prohibition of the first two terms, those above plough downwards and those below plough upwards. It seems reasonable that those above plough downwards but not that those below plough upwards. Let us hear from the following: “One removes a tree 25 cubits from a cistern.” We have stated on that: Both higher and lower. Or let us say both if the tree is higher and the cistern lower or if tree and cistern are on the same level. In this sense, we stated: “Whether the tree is higher and the cistern lower or the tree lower and the cistern higher”; is that reasonable? If the tree is higher and the cistern lower; but the tree lower and the cistern higher, do roots climb? Rebbi Ḥanina said not because of the roots [climbing], but they loosen the earth and damage the bottom of the cistern. A case came before Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he said that is a single opinion and we do not rely on it, for we have stated on this: “Rebbi Simeon says, just as they said higher so they said lower.”

Rebbi Abba bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institutions of the early prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

If one sowed it for seeds before the Sabbatical New Year, then in the Sabbatical year both seeds and vegetables are permitted. If one sowed it as vegetable before the Sabbatical New Year, then in the Sabbatical year both seeds and vegetables are forbidden. If one sowed it both for seeds and vegetable before the Sabbatical New Year, then in the Sabbatical year clearly seeds are permitted. What is the status of vegetables? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “forbidden”, Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated “permitted”. He who says “permitted” follows the word of the orah. He who says “forbidden”, because of the bad impression. Rebbi Simeon bar Zevida asked before Rebbi Yose: Then it should be forbidden even to use it to feed one’s animals, because of the bad impression. He said to him, one should not give to his son or to his agent, nor should he harvest in a row. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if a hole was torn out it is permitted. Even according to him who says it is forbidden, if he harvested and found vegetable in it, it is permitted. Similarly, when a man came carrying ten bundles of Lybian [beans] as tithe to Rebbi Jeremiah, he said that this should not be done; do not harvest more than what is needed for the pan.

One may give two explanations: If he had little [manure] on his field, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. One may give another explanation: If he had little [manure] in his house before the Sabbatical year and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. Has it not been fertilized before the Sabbatical year? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression [it is forbidden] unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care for a bad impression? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one does not build a new water canal during the intermediate days of holidays or during the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeїra said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” says here “because of the bad impression”; the one who says “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what can he say here? The only answer would be “maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place.” What would be the difference between them? If he dug to build a water canal for a building. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” will say in this case “because of the bad impression,” but the one who says there "because he would prepare its banks to be sown,” here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he built there with lime, pebbles, stones, or cement it would be permitted.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one does not build a new water canal during the intermediate days of holidays or during the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeїra said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” says here “because of the bad impression”; the one who says “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what can he say here? The only answer would be “maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place.” What would be the difference between them? If he dug to build a water canal for a building. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” will say in this case “because of the bad impression,” but the one who says there "because he would prepare its banks to be sown,” here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he built there with lime, pebbles, stones, or cement it would be permitted.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This means that it is forbidden to collect pebbles from another person’s field, for if he weeds, he will put his grasses there. That is, in an agricultural area, but on mountains and rocks it is permitted and he will think of it a kindness.

Rebbi Abun asked: Before the agricultural workers stop, may one make heaps on his own property in the way of those who spread manure?

HALAKHAH: “A field that had been cleared of thistles”, etc. There they say, when its thistles were removed, but the rabbis here say, when they were ploughed under. What is improvement in the opinion of the rabbis here? Everybody ploughs once and he ploughs twice. How can that be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government does not oppress, but here the government oppresses.

“Unripe grapes when they contain fluid”, etc. What argument can you give for unripe grapes? Rebbi Abun said, because at that stage usually the owls eat it.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a tree that buds before the fifteenth of Ševaṭ is tithed for the past [year]; after the fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the coming [year].” It was stated: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, when has this been said? For a tree producing two threshing floors a year. But trees making only one threshing floor per year, such as olive trees, date palms and carob trees, even if they budded before this day, belong to the future.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, people use to follow Rebbi Neḥemiah for carobs. Rebbi Simeon objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state that “the Sabbatical of white figs is the second year since they produce after three years”? According to you, those ripened in the Sabbatical year should be Sabbatical! He accepted that. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I wonder how Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish could bring this objection before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it. Could he not object: I am speaking about carobs and you about white figs, I am speaking about custom and you about practice, I am speaking about Rebbi Neḥemiah and you about the rabbis! It follows that the rules are equal for carobs and white figs, custom and practice, Rebbi Neḥemiah and the rabbis.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Does this mean, the first third for the past, the second third for the future? He said to him, the first third is slow in coming; afterwards it grows rapidly. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra learned that from a competent sharecropper. Samuel said, sixty days for six leaves, six days for sixty leaves. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from the appearance of leaves to the bud fifty days, from the bud to the wind-fall fifty days, from wind-fall to figs fifty days. Rebbi says, all of them by forty days.” If somebody harvested figs and does not know when their buds were formed, Rebbi Jonah said he counts a hundred days backwards; if the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ falls in this period he knows when they budded.

“Arum of the year before the Sabbatical” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not so also in the other years of the cycle since we have stated: “If it was the second year entering the third, he may not bend it or withhold water from it so it should be Second Tithe; if it was the third year entering the fourth, he may bend it and withhold water from it so it should be tithe of the poor”? This implies that bending down is like tearing out! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Explain that he tore them out before they started to grow.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask Rebbi Ḥaninah: What is the status of one who buys in Ammon and Moab? Rebbi Zeïra said, I asked this question before Rebbi Assi: Are not Ammon and Moab from Moses? Rebbi Mana asked this question before Rebbi Ḥaggai: Are not Ammon and Moab from Moses? Ammon and Moab are not from Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written (Num. 22:26): “For Ḥešbon is the city of Siḥon, the king of the Amorites.” Rebbi Simeon was not sure whether it was purified from the hand of Siḥon and Og or not. If you say it was purified it is obligated, if you say it was not purified it is free. Rebbi Tanḥuma said (Deut. 2:31): “Make profane for inheritance, to inherit his land.” I made his land profane before you.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Mana: May one mill with a Gentile in the Land? He said to him, the Mishnah tells us that it is forbidden, as it is stated: “One works in Syria what is plucked but not what is standing;” therefore in the Land it should be forbidden even when it was plucked.

It was stated: “There should not be five people collecting and one selling for them, but one may sell his own and that of a colleague. 50 brothers may collect and one sells for them.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but only should they not have a store, [i. e.], that he should not sell at the same place all year round; some say that he should not sell at all hours.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when is that? If he has no other, different profession. But if he has another, different profession it is permitted.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, if he has another profession on the side he is acceptable, otherwise he is unacceptable. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is permitted. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was publicly praised for presenting a tradition in the name of a younger person. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah is restrictive. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycles but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, if he has another profession on the side he is permitted, otherwise he is forbidden. (But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycles and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is forbidden.) With this we are not concerned. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was publicly praised for presenting a tradition in the name of a younger person. Here also should it be so? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

It was stated: “Produce from outside the Land that entered the Land should not be sold by measure, weight, or count, but only like produce of the Land.” It they are recognizable, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example qwrdqy’ brought up from Hippos and sold to Tiberias.

There, we have stated: “If somebody says, I am taking upon me [to offer] logs, he should not bring less than two.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am taking upon me [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated: “Two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.”

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit, as we have stated: “Whether he gives it after thirty days or after ten years.” Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge, but the other said, if he writes him a prozbol.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (1S. 14:26): “The people came to the forest and behold, there was a flow of honey.” What do you understand from this? Rebbi Mana said, the thicket produced honey. If he had said from (1S. 14:27): “He dipped it into the forest of honey”, it would have been better. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He really understood it from (1S. 14:27): “He dipped it into the forest of honey.”

Rebbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: If he has understanding for the past, he should have understanding for the future; ifhe has no understanding for the past, he would not have understanding for the future! Rebbi Eudaimon said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated so: “When was this said? When he explained it in his regular state. But if he was paralyzed by sickness, once is enough.”

The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry sin because of it.” Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said: If someone diminished by ten it is heave, and if he added ten it is heave. This does not apply to the profane [produce] since diminution and addition are not equal. How is that? If he used to give heave one in fifty, if he gives heave one in forty he makes him lose six quarters. If he gives heave one in sixty, he earns him four quarters.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally. Would Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell, he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in case he would complete it in the future.

If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally. Would Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell, he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in case he would complete it in the future.

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would hold with Rebbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a Cohen; but for something he is not obligated to give to a Cohen, even Rebbi will agree since that is a Mishnah: “If he separated the redemption of a first-born donkey and then it died, Rebbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation as for the five tetradrachmas of the [human] first-born; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.” Rebbi Eliezer will agree about first-born donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, that he sanctified it when he separated it.

One who ate the heave of a Fellow has to pay the Fellow, one who ate the heave of a vulgar person has to pay the vulgar person. Does he then not deliver his pure food to a vulgar person? How does he do it, he gives both to a Cohen Fellow, takes the price of one of them and gives that to the vulgar Cohen. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows him who says, its separation sanctifies. But for him who says, the delivery sanctifies, does it not need acquisition in any case? He said to them, he operates through the services of a third person.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

Rebbi Ammi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful. It is forbidden to put a coin into the mouth, or a dish under the bed, a bread in the arm pit, a knife in the middle of a radish, a knife into an etrog. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all sweat that comes from a human is poison except the sweat of the face.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinions of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave].

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose; therefore, following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rebbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon taught that. And if you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rebbi Assi: All suspended [heave] we are dealing with here is suspended [heave] about which he has no intention of asking. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything.

You say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Meїr will not agree. But did we not state: “When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure.” And if it follows Rebbi Meїr, whether it contains enough to lift it or does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication.” A person says “this is not the implication” only if he agrees with the premise. How is that? There, the Torah cares about the money of the Jews, here what can you say? Does he not here also cayse him to lose money since he needs fire wood to burn each lot separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah, the Second of the Cohanim.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai in order to examine him: If somebody muzzled outside and then brought [the animal] inside? He said to him (Lev. 10:9): “When you come to the tent of meeting;” from when you come to the tent of meeting. Rebbi Ezra said, (Deut. 25:4) “Do not muzzle an ox at his threshing;” do not thresh using a muzzled ox.

What do you have? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, e. g., bulb plants.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Garlic up to the size of a barley corn is a plant whose seeds disappear. Larger than that, it is a plant whose seeds do not disappear. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Garlic is like barley in every respect.

“Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it spoiled and improved or improved and spoiled, it is a disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

“Any keg containing two seah”. How much is in a seah? [24] (14) log. How much is in a log? 2 pounds. How much is in a pound? 100 zin. It turns out that each single zin corresponds to one in 960. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed at Akhbara: one in a thousand.

There, we have stated: “The following disable and do not fill: Water, whether pure or impure, pickling water, cooking water, afterwine before it became vinegar.” Here, you treat it as food, there as fluid. Rebbi Mana said, here when it is thick, there when it is thin. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, you may even say in both cases thick or thin. Taste counts for heave but not for a miqweh.

There, we have stated: “The center parts of water melon and what is cleaned from vegetables of heave, Rebbi Dosa permits to laymen but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They taught that only for what is cleaned from vegetables of gardeners. But for what is cleaned from vegetables of private people, even the rabbis will agree. Rebbi Abun asked: Is it not reasonable that this refers only to the Great Heave, but for heave of the tithe torn-off leaves do not count for leaves, neither do torn-off stems for stems?

Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: That log of oil of the leper, must he give it back or not? If you say he must give it back, and he did not, he transgresses by default. If you say he need not give it back, and he did, he transgresses by excess Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so, but Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. That log of oil of the leper belongs to those [consecrated foods] which can be permitted and you say he must give it back? That means, he must give back and if he did not, he transgresses by default.

New section. “All red fruits when they start to become red.” Miasha stated: Even if only one pomegranate was soft, all is connected for tithe. “A bunch of grapes one berry of which became red is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, they made it clear to us, [this refers to] the entire vine, even to the entire strain. They added and made it clear, all this direction. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the entire vineyard. If it was a small vineyard and he made it large, large and he made it small, one and he split in into two, two which he united?

New paragraph 2. “Fenugreek so that a new plant grows.” So is the Mishnah: So that it would grow if sown. How can one check? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He takes a handful and puts it into a pot full of water. If the greater part of it will sink down, it is obligated; otherwise it is exempt. Rebbi Jonah asked: In this case, should not that which sank down be obligated, what did not sink down be exempted? But it must have been said about the greater part of each single ear. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun confirmed: It has been said about the greater part of each single ear.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: From when are olives subject to tithes? When the quickly growing summer fruit first ripens. If no quickly growing summer fruit ripens, when white figs first ripen. If there are no white figs to ripen, when the second batch is seen in the muqẓeh. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, when the first really white white figs ripen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this refers only to white figs of the same place.

How far? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Unless he would burn his hand if he put it in. Everybody agrees that a second vessel is permitted. What is the difference between first and second vessels? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, here the hand holds, there the hand does not hold. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases the hand does not hold but they decreed removal for a first but not a second vessel. Rebbi Mana said, that platter of rice supports my father, that platter of grits supports my father since you remove it from place to place and it is still boiling.

May one put spices at the bottom and pour on them from above? Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden and pouring acts as first vessel. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from this: “Both vessels used for cooking or into which it was poured boiling.” (And here, you say so?) Rebbi Yose said, there a pottery vessel absorbs; spices are not cooked. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun objected: Did we not state, “the same holds for brass vessels.” Can one say that brass vessels absorb?

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun [said it] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah stays with his opinion, the rabbis stay with their opinion, as we have stated: “Olives which somebody crushed with impure hands are not prepared, to let them soak up salt they are prepared, to know whether they contain sap they are not prepared; Rebbi Jehudah says they are prepared.” The rabbis say, he checks their sap. Rebbi Jehudah says, he checks their body. Here, the rabbis say he polishes with their sap, Rebbi Jehudah says, he polishes with what he has.

Rebbi said to his son Rebbi Simeon, climb up and bring us dried figs from the barrel. He said to him, is it not forbidden because of muqzeh? He retorted, are you still holding that? Nothing but figs and grapes can be forbidden because of muqzeh! Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarta: Because they stink in between. Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Assi: Is it not reasonable to hold that the case involved split dates? He said to him, that is my opinion also. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The case involved split dates.

“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree and I will eat my fill from yours,’ he who eats his fill is free and he who eats a fixed number is obligated.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Can a person not eat one by one with permission and be free? He said to him, yes. Then why is he obligated here? He said to him, when he takes them together. If he takes them together, even he who eats his fill should be obligated! Is he not forbidden because of barter? Rebbi Shammai said, there is no barter since this man only wanted to make him hungry that he should eat.

‘If he found a harvesting basket in a place where most people bring to market, it is forbidden to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as demay. In a place where most people bring to their houses, it is permitted to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as certain. Half and half, he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Rebbi Jonah asked, does demay create ṭevel for certain? If you would say so, does he not invert the order? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, he must spell out a condition and say: “If this is from those who bring to market, what I did is valid, otherwise, I did not do anything,” so that heave of the tithe should not contain ṭevel of the Great Heave. ‘Half and half on the field he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Should one not be afraid that it was from those who bring to their houses and its Great Heave would contain ṭevel of heave of the tithe? Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gives a name to his tithes.

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

Are they not pressed in the houses? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it where most people press in the fields. Rebbi Zeїra asked: Is it not recognizable whether it is pressed or not? Rebbi Saul said, sometime it jumps from under the roller, then it is pressed and looks as if not pressed. Sometimes a foot squeezes it, then it is not pressed and looks like pressed. Rebbi Eleazar said, that is, at a place where most people are not pressing in the fields. But at a place where most people are pressing in the fields, those who pressed and the minority who will press in the future are added together.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: What does Rebbi Jehudah add to the words of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba? He said to him, nothing.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: He sowed in a flower pot without a hole and made a hole? He said to him, now it has a hole.

Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel goes with the argument of his ancestor Rabban Gamliel. As we stated there: “Jews who were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria, Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel frees.”

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is by proportion.” He explains it, up to the size of olives. “What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together in proportion.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: The Mishnah comes up so: What is mixed and what is taken out in fists full in proprtion.

Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob showed a basket of palm leaves to a carpenter and redeemed following his opinion. Rebbi Yannai showed a quarter [qab] wheat to a wheat dealer and redeemed following his opinion. Rebbi Simon showed produce to Rebbi Ḥilqiah who asked him, by their true value? He answered, yes. Rebbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rebbi Simon, one does not redeem Second Tithe following the opinion of imbeciles. Rebbi Phineas showed produce to a grits-maker who asked him, by their true value? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon, one does not redeem following the opinion of imbeciles. Rebbi Shammai said, how much a person wants [to pay] on a clear noontime at the summer solstice when the bath master takes up his bunches, he brings coins and redeems. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as much as a person wants Friday afternoon from women braiders when he passes by, he brings coins and redeems. Rebbi Yudan bar Gadya said, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun left it lying until it got moldy and redeemed it immediately after the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagree. One said, why may one circumvent it? For “blessing” is written about it. The other said, why is it redeemed at a cheap rate? For “blessing” is written about it.

How do we hold? If he said to him, go and redeem for me, he is his agent; go and redeem for yourself, they are the other’s property. But we have to hold that he said to him, redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property. We have stated thus: “Redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property, he does not add a fifth.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where neither it nor its redemption money is his, he does not have to add a fifth. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 27:31): “If a person goes to redeem of his own tithes, his own fifth he shall add to it;” both it and its redemption money must be his.

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but here you have it and give it to her, if he wants to take it back, he may take it back.” The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me. ‘Bring it to her, give it to her, acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may take it back; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back.” Rebbi says, in any of these cases he may not take it back except if he says, “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but give it to her.” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. Rebbi Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is divorced and not divorced. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were at the same theme, it is a bill of divorce.

Were these exchanged? We have stated there: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs. Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rebbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” “heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (Num. 15:21): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning.

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Patora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.