anan

Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money.

Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Bostra. He saw them sprinkling at that Aphrodite. He said to them, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan told him in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Nothing public is forbidden.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Bostra. He saw them sprinkling at that Aphrodite. He said to them, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan told him in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Nothing public is forbidden.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Ḥiqoq. He saw them dealing with mustard plants. One of these fell down and he [a townsman] did not take it up. He [R. Simeon] said, if somebody will bring a mustard plant to me I shall rule following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, Rebbi Onias from Hauran ruled in Bet Hauran following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan rose and publicly proclaimed following the rabbis here and there.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

They said in the name of four elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: The arguments of Rav seem to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Judan, are the rules different for a wick and an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

“From Bet Ḥoron to the Sea is one domain.” Without regions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, still there is Mountain, Lowland, and Valley. From Bet Ḥoron to Emmaus it is Mountain, from Emmaus to Lydda Lowland, from Lydda to the Sea Valley. Then there should be four stated? They are adjacent.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not have here leaves of reeds, only leaves of vines. Leaves of reeds do not have to be removed. We have stated thus: Leaves of reeds, sumac, and carob tree have no removal because their kinds never disappear.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with permitted produce. For that we stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, it should be given to those who eat it. Since Rebbi Eliezer is a Shammaiite, did we state: One does eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity and without reciprocity, following the House of Shammai? For that, the rabbis answer him that the sinner should not be rewarded? They answered him according to his argument: Against your argument, when you say that it should be given to those who eat it, a sinner should not be rewarded.

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this?

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this?

Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end.

Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end.

“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?

“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 Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: If they sanctified it and afterwards the witnesses turned out to be perjured, it still is sanctified. Rebbi Assi stayed with Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi and asked him: Did you hear this from your father? He said, yes. Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not cross-examine the witnesses of the New Moon.

Who notifies? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the signatories of the document. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, they treated the statement of the signatories of a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined by the court? There, it is about those who would say: We did not sign at all. But here they say, on this we signed, on that we did not sign.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are really invalid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he only counts from the time of writing. But did we not state: “A prozbol is valid, whether predated or postdated, but it only counts from the time of writing”? If you assert this for financial documents, what is the difference between a prozbol and a financial document?

Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower, or the borrower but not the lender. If he has no real estate but one who owes him has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody trades in promises, there you say the Sages are displeased with him. But sometimes you say only that one gives him up to “Him who made pay”.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who gives a ring as surety and wants to get out of the deal, may get out of the deal. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: A gold coin? He said to him, a ring. What is the difference between a gold coin and a ring? Gold coins are exchanged, a ring remains as it is.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Should not their action be proof of their intentions? As we have stated there: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew. We also have stated there: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that [his animals’] feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” When thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.

Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rebbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is that (Deut. 24:1,3): “he writes for her”, for her personally? Rebbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

Who states “the deaf-mute?” Not Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sons of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada were all deaf-mutes and all purities in Jerusalem were handled by them. They said to him, because purities do not need thought and may be produced by a deaf-mute, an insane, and a minor. But heaves and tithes need thought and do not become invalidated by absent-mindedness.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Thought is not written in regard to them, only watching.

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.

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.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: 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.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may 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 agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: 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.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who said to a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand”, and this Levite went and made it heave of the tithe for other produce but the Israel went and gave it to another Levite, [the first one] has only a complaint on him. That is, if he handed it over before [the first Levite] made it [heave]. But not if this one made it before that one handed it over. Parallel to this Mishnah: “If he terminated: if he terminated before he gave heave, his heave is not heave. But if he terminated after he gave heave, his heave is heave.” All this follows: From the moment he said, you have a kor of tithe in my hand, he made him his agent and it turns out that he was tithing with the permission of the Israel. One may also explain it following Rebbi Yose, as “Rebbi Yose said: If the owner gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: There, we stated: “One does not give heave from finished for unfinished,” and here you say so? Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of robbing the tribe. What means, because of robbing the tribe? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the exertion. Think about it, if there was a grain of rice? People willingly will pound something. Think about it, if it were in ears? So far goes our question. Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Mana did not say so but he wanted to give heave proportional to the oil and gave only proportional to olives. Think about it, if he gave proportional to the oil? Now he did so, another time he will not do so. In addition, his neighbor will see him and say, this one wants to give a lot but I do not want to give a lot.

Ḥizqiah said, they mentioned only olives for oil and grapes for wine, hence not for any other produce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only olives for oil and grapes for wine but also any other produce. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even immediately.

Ḥizqiah said, they mentioned only olives for oil and grapes for wine, hence not for any other produce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only olives for oil and grapes for wine but also any other produce. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even immediately.

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have while he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal.

Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and ownerless property all have the same rule. Did one not already state everything? Thus you have to understand the Mishnah: [One may] not [give] from produce one third ripe for produce not yet one third ripe, and when he gave heave, it is not heave. For Ḥizqiah it is a point of contention, for Rebbi Joḥanan it is everybody’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure, even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself”.

Since we stated: “If there were two fig-cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain,” etc.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons or squash.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah. (Num. 18:12): “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain.” Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [Between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. [Between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, and one does not have to mention that [between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: [Between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. [Between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, and one does not have to mention that [between] Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. From this you infer that [between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof. But have we not stated: “If workers gave heave from a vat, their heave is not heave. But if the vat was small or if the owners or others stir it, their heave is heave.” Because others stir it, but if others do not stir it, their heave would not be heave! What is this? One statement for wine, the other for oil. But are not wine and oil the same? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not.

“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaїm state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaїm state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.

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‘.

If he said, the heave of this and that heap should be in this one; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar asked: If a seah of heave fell into a heap and he said, the heave of this heap is contained in it, does the heave of the heap end at that seah?

What if the heave of two heaps [was given] together? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

That is, if most of the heap was put in order. If most of the heap was not put in order, there is disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan. As Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality. Since it was his intention to give, each single grain of wheat was labelled at its place. Some want to explain following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, that he cannot separate either for itself or for another place. This parallels the following: If there were before him two heaps and from each of them he took part of heave or tithes, may he take heave or tithe from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

That is, if most of the heap was put in order. If most of the heap was not put in order, there is disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan. As Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality. Since it was his intention to give, each single grain of wheat was labelled at its place. Some want to explain following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, that he cannot separate either for itself or for another place. This parallels the following: If there were before him two heaps and from each of them he took part of heave or tithes, may he take heave or tithe from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to free his heap. But if he did not do it in order to free his heap, even one on one.

Cahana said, “in his usual way.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, even one for one. But did we not state, “in his usual way”? That he should not give less. Rebbi Eleazar said, in his usual way of measurement, but if he wants to add, even one for one.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

How far does a man free his ṭevel by the word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan instructed: One in a hundred like heave of the tithe. Rebbi Joḥanan asked him, from whom did you hear this? He said, from arguments of the colleagues I understood this, although Rebbi Yannai said, even one in a thousand. Rebbi Mana said, there is no measure since it is written (Deut. 18:4): “The first of your grain, cider, and oil;” any amount.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as dema‘.

In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is simple. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is ṭevel for tithes. Therefore, he must declare: “The excess he should make heave of the tithe for another place.” In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, it is difficult. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is ṭevel for everything. But we have stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe,” he should make it heave of the tithe for another place. Hizkiah holds with what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe for another place.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer [is that] if black figs fell into white ones, one may eat the white ones.

“ “White ones lift the black.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer answered Rebbi Joshua thus: Do white ones lift the black? His words say, when it is known what fell in they lift one another. Cahana said, they do not lift. In the opinion of Cahana, what is the difference between Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba? When he had known but forgot. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua he lifts, in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he does not lift. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is only if one black one fell into two white ones, that it may be disregarded in a plurality. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Would it not be reasonable [to say] into three so that if one of them is lost there still will be two? He said to him, that is also my opinion.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.