anan

.What is the difference between them? Rebbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe? Maybe it was said on the principle of ṭevel for produce of the Gentile? Since we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted it because of the glory of the Sabbath. If it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, why does he have to ask him? By way of finding a cause. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The fear of the Sabbath is on him and he will speak the truth. If the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why did we state that at nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed? Because of one who does not fear the Sabbath. It was stated: “If he asks him on weekdays, he may not eat on the Sabbath.” According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, this is fine. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath; when he asks him on weekdays, should he not eat on the Sabbath?

A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them. It was stated: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)? Nevertheless, he only said “because of hatred.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of a protogamia they permitted because of hatred. Rebbi Avin said, here they permitted ṭevel because of human relations. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because of human relations, why is it only on condition that the host tell him that it was tithed? If he invited him on the first Sabbath but he did not come, can the second Sabbath become the first? Rav Ḥisda said, here we have learned that a ḥaver may not eat at a meal that has no name.

HALAKHAH: But is a single witness trustworthy? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

HALAKHAH: 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, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

HALAKHAH: 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, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as they declared the produce of the Land of Israel demay notwithstanding the majority and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other, so they declared the produce of Samaritans certain, notwithstanding the majority one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated: “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.”

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria. For Syria, we hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai descended into Homs. The family Astor asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Zeïra asked Rebbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose. Also from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them.

There you say, he separates heave and delivers to him. Here you say, he tithes and delivers to him. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages fined the one who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine the one who leases from a Jew. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile but not to him who leases from a Jew.

There you say, he separates heave and delivers to him. Here you say, he tithes and delivers to him. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages fined the one who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine the one who leases from a Jew. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile but not to him who leases from a Jew.

Him who says that the law applies, one can understand. He who says, they fined? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one has stated this only in the case of oppressors. Since you say so to him, he exerts himself and buys the land back.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’, water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated: “One should not sell him a ploughing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity.

It was stated: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan; just as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction, so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rebbi Jonah met Rebbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, sap is counted as a fluid.

It was stated: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan; just as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction, so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rebbi Jonah met Rebbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, sap is counted as a fluid.

: Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the grain wholesaler. He explains the Mishnah: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and that part of his which could be spread anywhere as demay. Rebbi Jonah objected: He sells it as certain and tithes only demay? It is only possible in the way Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is the word of everybody: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and his part anywhere as demay; that means one half of his part in his partner’s hand as demay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with demay. Hence, not with certain produce? A Mishnah says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had ṭevel figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or on the field.” If you want to say that we deal with demay, you cannot do so, since it is stated: “If it was demay.” What Rebbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with demay. He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with demay. What is the difference between demay and certain produce? For demay, a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with demay. Hence, not with certain produce? A Mishnah says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had ṭevel figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or on the field.” If you want to say that we deal with demay, you cannot do so, since it is stated: “If it was demay.” What Rebbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with demay. He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with demay. What is the difference between demay and certain produce? For demay, a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession.

Rebbi Yannai said, he must remember his proviso. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he must whisper with his lips.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah forbids.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? “But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go, buy from the place from which his host bought, and tithe.” Can a person give for something that is not his? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they considered him as one who sold ṭevel produce to another person, as was stated: “He who sells ṭevel produce to another person has to run after him and put the produce in order. If he does not find him, if it is known that the produce still exists, he has to tithe for him; if not, he does not have to tithe for him. If it is doubtful whether the produce exists or not, he tithes for it and gives a name to the tithes.”

Rebbi Joḥanan went to some place where he found the schoolteacher weak. He asked them, what has happened? They said to him, he is fasting. He said to him, that is forbidden to you. If one says that it is forbidden for the work one does for flesh and blood, so much more for the work of the Holy One, praise to Him!

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah: “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there. We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here. Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim!

Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah: “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there. We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here. Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim!

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, they stated only turnips and radishes, nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether turnips, radishes, or any other plants. What are we talking about? If because of the rules of vegetables and trees, why do I need vine and radishes, even any other plants? If because he does not want them to take root, why turnips and radishes, even any other species also? From what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “for example bunches of turnips and bunches of radishes,” it follows that the reason is only because he does not want them to take root.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

“Should be diminished.” How does he diminish? Either he removes from the quarter or he adds to the seah. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say (Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan), for all prohibitions, if one added in error, it is permitted, if intentionally, it is forbidden. There you add to annul a Torah prohibition, but here you add because of the bad impression.

“Should be diminished.” How does he diminish? Either he removes from the quarter or he adds to the seah. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say (Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan), for all prohibitions, if one added in error, it is permitted, if intentionally, it is forbidden. There you add to annul a Torah prohibition, but here you add because of the bad impression.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

Rebbi Eleazar asked: What are the rules for a small field? Let us hear from the following: “ Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon: Abba Yose ben Joḥanan from Yanoaḥ said for a large field 50 cubits, for a small field along most of it.” Since those who specified a measure for a large field did not do so for a small one, the Sages who did not specify a measure for a large field certainly would not specify a measure for a small field.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated only: “A vertex of wheat;” hence, a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

It was stated: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a bet rova‘, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden? There it is for grain, here for vegetables. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

It was stated: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a bet rova‘, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden? There it is for grain, here for vegetables. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

It was stated: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a bet rova‘, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden? There it is for grain, here for vegetables. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

On dry soil one may sow any kind he desires. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he uses three of six [hand-breadths]. Three that are close to a fence are like dry land. If there were three inside six and one outside six, since the former ones were saved, that one also is saved. If only two were inside six and one outside six, since the first ones were not saved, neither is that one. If there was one row dry, one row fence, and another row, one jails the row by the fence on fields. Two fields, one above the other, the upper one is close to a ditch, the lower one close to a fence.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For the first part, Rebbi Meïr says, even jailed, even adjacent, but the rabbis say, on condition that they were neither jailed nor adjacent. How is that done? 3,2,1,2,l.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Judan said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac disagree. One says, even three in a width of six, the other said, one on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if there is no dry patch, that means that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: One on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. If the sides were more than the dry patch, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: (Is. 61:11) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

Samuel said, they taught only one row, hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six.

HALAKHAH: “If one plants two rows”, etc. Ḥizqiah said, there is disagreement. He who says there 12 [cubits], here also 12 [cubits]. He who says there eight, here also eight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this Mishnah is according to everybody. A strip of melon is good enough among strips of melons to be saved by eight.

How long does it have to be to jail? Rebbi Zeïra said, let us infer it from a vineyard. Just as you say in regard to a vineyard that there is no difference between length and separation, so here also there is no difference between length and separation. That is fine according to the opinion of Ḥizqiah; there eight and here also eight. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, with how much will it jail? If you say with eight, is there an argument a fortiori that a strip of melons among onions will jail only with twelve? But a melon strip, which you empowered among melon strips to save by a mere eight, will be jailed by eight, melon strips among onions, which you weakened to save only by twelve, certainly will be jailed only by eight. If you say that a melon strip among onions will be jailed only by twelve, then an argument a fortiori shows that a melon strip among melons should be jailed only by twelve.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Ismael imply that one allows space for tending even for a single row.

HALAKHAH: “A bald spot in a vineyard.” Rebbi Joḥanan said that the rules for a bald spot in a vineyard and a dried-up vineyard are the same. A bald spot is cleared in its middle, a dried-up vineyard is cleared on all four sides. Rebbi Yose said, this applies to a large vineyard but if it comes from the plants of a small vineyard, the rules of a bald spot in a vineyard do not apply. Also, we have stated: “What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in its middle but enough for a vineyard remained, whether it be from all four sides, or from three, or from two opposite sides.” How is that? Five rows of seven each, one took out one row of vineyard, that leaves four vineyards and three intervals. One takes out another one, that leaves three vineyards and two intervals. One takes out another one, that leaves two vineyards and one interval.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

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.

Samuel said, one measures along the oblique line. Rebbi Yose bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You consider it as if one were planted there.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: A bald spot in a vineyard is like a vineyard that dried up. One clears the ground of a bald spot in a vineyard in its interior, one clears the ground of a dried-up vineyard on all sides.

One assumes that another [vine] was planted there, for all four sides. One cannot actually plant on any of the four sides because it would form a tail and there is no tail for a tail. This implies that there is no tail for a large vineyard, which gives a simple answer to the question of Rebbi Yose ben Zabida in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one considers as if another [vine] was planted there.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, if graves were spaced apart and one moved them together, they would form a graveyard. When they were close together and one spaces them apart, that does not make a graveyard. But here, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is necessary that there be an empty space of four hand-breadths. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, that is, if it is round. But if it is square, it does not need an empty space of four hand-breadths. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul said, it needs three hand-breadths of dirt on top. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if it is round. But if it is square, it does not need three hand-breadths of dirt on top.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “If they produce greenery it should be plowed under:” all is permitted. “If they are green stalks, they should be broken:” the straw is permitted but the grains are forbidden. “If they produced grain it must be burned:” all is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all is forbidden. What does our statement mean, “if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned”? It parallels what we have stated there: “Orlah and kilaim of a vineyard. Anything that usually is buried should be buried. Anything that usually is burned should be burned.”

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.