anan

Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon, Rebbi Birai, Rebbi Levi bar Plautus, an elder in the name of Rebbi: 61 are forbidden, 62 are permitted. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada testified before us: 60. He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I shall declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I [said] what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty. He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi; he asked: Are there 50?

Rebbi Zeїra went to visit Rebbi Ḥiyya, the son of Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya. He found him sitting. He said, they taught only for yolk, but in the egg white it is permitted. He thought that he had heard it from his ancestor. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both egg white and yolk are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Yolk is forbidden, egg white permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said, he who says yolk is forbidden if it is found at the male part of the yolk; this applies even to yolk, but only if it is found on its male part since from there the development of the chick starts.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. 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.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. 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.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. 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.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If somebody would say to you there are eight drinks, tell him, are not dew and water the same? But they counted them as two! If we had another, would they not have counted it? If another did exist, would they not have counted it?

“ Pure heave olives should be made into oil, impure should not; grapes either pure or impure should not be processed [into wine], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob says in his name, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and pure grapes should be processed, but not impures ones. Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and grapes should be processed, whether pure or impure. Rebbi (Joḥanan) said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed and impure grapes should not be processed; they disagreed about impure olives and pure grapes where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed.” They all form a majority against Rebbi Meïr about pure grapes, that they should be processed. Why does he say, they should not be processed? They are more valuable as food than as drink. They all form a majority against Rebbi Jehudah about impure grapes, that they should not be processed. Why does he say, they should be processed? To be able to use seeds and skins. About impure olives, Rebbi and Rebbi Meïr form one group, Rebbi Jacob and Rebbi Jehudah another one. How does one act?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan, the Mishnah deals with seeds of pears and paradise pears. Rebbi Eleazar said, you can even say the pit of unripe dates if they have not been sucked. But did we not state, “and so bones of sacrifices;” can you say if they have not been sucked? No, about cartilage in wings. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of cartilage in wings.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan, the Mishnah deals with seeds of pears and paradise pears. Rebbi Eleazar said, you can even say the pit of unripe dates if they have not been sucked. But did we not state, “and so bones of sacrifices;” can you say if they have not been sucked? No, about cartilage in wings. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of cartilage in wings.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is its measure. But did we not state: “One produces fine flour from wheat as he wants it, he cleans vegetables as he wants it.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he reduces it to its heave. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: Here in years of famine, there in years of plenty.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is its measure. But did we not state: “One produces fine flour from wheat as he wants it, he cleans vegetables as he wants it.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he reduces it to its heave. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: Here in years of famine, there in years of plenty.

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

There, we have stated: “If he turned it and it accumulated, that belongs to the seller.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “belongs to the seller” but “belongs to the buyer”, as you say here. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, it is because of abandonment. Is it the same for consecrated food? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is the same for consecrated food.

There, we have stated: “If he turned it and it accumulated, that belongs to the seller.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “belongs to the seller” but “belongs to the buyer”, as you say here. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, it is because of abandonment. Is it the same for consecrated food? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is the same for consecrated food.

“ Yeast of heave, the first and second are forbidden, the third is permitted. When has this been said? If he added water. But if he did not add water, even the third is forbidden Yeast of second tithe, the first is forbidden but the second permitted. Rebbi Meïr said, the second by imparting taste.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, the consecrated is like the accumulated.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

“One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.”

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Are truffles and mushrooms obligated for tithes? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him in the name of Rebbi Simai, it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe all produce of your seed.” Anything which is sown and grows. This excludes truffles and mushrooms which grow but are not sown. Rebbi Jonah offers the language: Because the earth extrudes them.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Are truffles and mushrooms obligated for tithes? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him in the name of Rebbi Simai, it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe all produce of your seed.” Anything which is sown and grows. This excludes truffles and mushrooms which grow but are not sown. Rebbi Jonah offers the language: Because the earth extrudes them.

HALAKHAH: What means ביחילו? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it comes alive, as you say (Zach. 11:8): “And their souls were too much for me.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they start to become red outside. Do all figs become red on the outside? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Marion said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He takes one and puts it somewhere. If that one ripens within 24 hours they are obligated, otherwise they are free.

HALAKHAH: What means ביחילו? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it comes alive, as you say (Zach. 11:8): “And their souls were too much for me.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they start to become red outside. Do all figs become red on the outside? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Marion said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He takes one and puts it somewhere. If that one ripens within 24 hours they are obligated, otherwise they are free.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: I was riding on my grandfather’s shoulder when I heard the voice of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar who was sitting and stating: “One collects the insides of a sweet melon but one does not collect the insides of a water melon.” What is the difference between the insides of a sweet melon and those of a water melon? Rebbi Simeon ben Barsana said, the insides of a sweet melon are for eating, those of a water melon for sowing. If you would say so, you will end up sweeping the ground on the Sabbath.

“What is obligated among bitter almonds is free among sweet almonds”, small ones; “what is obligated among the sweet is free among the bitter”, large ones. “ Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: Bitter almonds are free; sweet ones are not obligated before the outer shell separates.” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed in Sepphoris following that statement of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. What did he instruct about? The people of Sepphoris said, about bitter ones. Rebbi Zeїra said, about sweet ones. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they came down here they would become obligated. If they are brought up, they already are free. Rebbi Phineas instructed: After one saw three with detached outer shell, he gives heave for the entire box. Rebbi Mana said, only he may not give heave from one box for another.

“Grain when it is in smooth piles.” Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he straightens his heap. But did not Rebbi Jacob ben Sisin state: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the pitchfork.” Here, when he intends to smoothe, there if he did not intend to smoothe. It was stated: “He sifts part and gives heave from the sifted part for what is not sifted.” Rebbi Ila said, for this is the way of householders to bring it into their houses. What is the reason? (Is. 30:24) “The bulls and young donkeys which work the soil will eat sour mix.” If he sifted [grain] dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed it; since he was able to eat from it as a snack and now he cannot eat, it is as if he did it with the permission of the Temple and he is obligated. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Did we not state, “if he took out and cleaned what was dedicated to the Temple, he is free?” Rebbi Yudan said, there it is not impossible for him not to preserve or not to cook a long time. But here it is impossible for him not to smooth it, as Rebbi Ila said, the bulls and young donkeys, etc.

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

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of the first teacher imply that neither does the bottom need the top nor the top the bottom. The words of the last teacher, [the bottom] needs the top but not the top the bottom. Rebbi Eleazar said, that is Rebbi Meїr’s. He said to him, that you should not think to say it is an anonymous opinion and, against Rebbi Yose, practice follows the anonymous opinion. Therefore, one needs to say that this is Rebbi Meїr’s and between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose practice follows Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah implies that they made it like a branch hanging into the courtyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he eats single ones, eats in a public place, and leaves some remainder. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, even if he does not eat single ones, even if he does not eat in a public place and leaves no remainder.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah implies that they made it like a branch hanging into the courtyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he eats single ones, eats in a public place, and leaves some remainder. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, even if he does not eat single ones, even if he does not eat in a public place and leaves no remainder.

HALAKHAH: When fruits were collected not for use on the Sabbath and the Sabbath started, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Sabbath does not make it ṭevel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, did we not state: “If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey?” We stated about this: Even if he stayed overnight, even if he stayed over the Sabbath! He said to him, when he wants to stay for the Sabbath. You should know that this is so since we have stated about this: “Even if he stayed for the Sabbath on Monday.” Can you have the Sabbath on a Monday? It must be that he wants to stay for the Sabbath; here also if he wants to stay for the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: When fruits were collected not for use on the Sabbath and the Sabbath started, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Sabbath does not make it ṭevel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, did we not state: “If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey?” We stated about this: Even if he stayed overnight, even if he stayed over the Sabbath! He said to him, when he wants to stay for the Sabbath. You should know that this is so since we have stated about this: “Even if he stayed for the Sabbath on Monday.” Can you have the Sabbath on a Monday? It must be that he wants to stay for the Sabbath; here also if he wants to stay for the Sabbath.

It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Bene Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if we stay overnight, we are obligated to tithe; otherwise, we are not obligated to tithe.” Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Joshua insists on cleanliness. Rebbi Mana said to him, are all others insane? But Rebbi Joshua, who frequently was attended to, says that staying overnight induces ṭevel. For all others, who are not frequently attended to, staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. But did we not state: “Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat until they come to the place where they will stay for the night.” Where is their overnight stay? In their house! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Like those of Kefar Ḥanina who go out, trade in four or five villages, return, and sleep in their houses.

Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They disagree if he gathers and delivers. But if he gathers for [his own] food, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and is free, but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as they differ here they differ about a secure courtyard since Rebbi Joḥanan said that [the rules of] buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So did Rebbi Jehudah disprove Rebbi Meїr[’s argument]: Do you not concede to me that one who gives to his son is free? What is the difference between gathering and giving to his son or gathering and giving to another person? Rebbi Yudan asked: What did you see to say ‘if he gathers and delivers,’ can we not say ‘if he gathers and eats’? Rebbi Mana said, there cannot be “if he gathers and eats”, only “if he gathers and delivers,” because of that rose garden. Can you say the rose garden [is a case of] gathering and eating? No, gathering and delivering! There also, he gathers and delivers because he would say to him, if you enter you will damage its roses! A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Mana’s argument: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the orchard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.’ ”

HALAKHAH: ‘ Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He plucks single berries and eats. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that is what my teacher did. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: If he bit off the minutest amount from a watermelon, he acquired it. Rebbi Jonah asked, does this also hold for a pomegranate?

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards, one in Magdala and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation, but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. Rebbi Eliezer’s statement is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.

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

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

There, we have stated: “If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered into the courtyard from the garden. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish.” Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes one snack containing two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”

There, we have stated: “If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered into the courtyard from the garden. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish.” Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes one snack containing two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”

HALAKHAH: Fire creates ṭevel, buying creates ṭevel, salt creates ṭevel, heave creates ṭevel, the Sabbath creates ṭevel, a secure courtyard creates ṭevel, but Rebbi Joḥanan said that buying and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

If he pickled or cooked without the owners’ knowledge, there is a difference between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since these differ: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Yudan said, there it is impossible for him not to make a heap, here it is possible for him not to pickle.

If he pickled or cooked without the owners’ knowledge, there is a difference between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since these differ: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Yudan said, there it is impossible for him not to make a heap, here it is possible for him not to pickle.

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath induces ṭevel? Because they collected for the Sabbath; therefore, not if they did not collect for the Sabbath! Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even if they collected for the Sabbath one may eat a snack from them on Sabbath eve. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Are they not children and even if they collected for the Sabbath it is as if they had not collected for the Sabbath! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath induces ṭevel? Because they collected for the Sabbath; therefore, not if they did not collect for the Sabbath! Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even if they collected for the Sabbath one may eat a snack from them on Sabbath eve. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Are they not children and even if they collected for the Sabbath it is as if they had not collected for the Sabbath! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only about a Sabbath basket. Maybe Rebbi Jehudah spoke about someone who collected a harvesting basket full to send to his friend, that he cared for it as if it were a Sabbath basket?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for warm [cider] he is obligated because that is not a snack; cold is free because it is a snack and he may put it back. Following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he woul put it back in the end.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lifts out plants from his own property”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s. As we have stated there, “He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is the opinion of everybody. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the matter of young plants. What is the difference between wheat and young plants? For wheat, it was the end of processing; for plants it is not the end of processing. Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages in the matter of turnips and radishes because they spoil. Does wheat not also spoil? Wheat admits another threshing floor, these have no other threshing floor.

“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow, he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything. Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah but for ṭevel which has this status by their word everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state: “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words? Rebbi Mana said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing which was mixed with oil from picked olives.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything. Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah but for ṭevel which has this status by their word everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state: “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words? Rebbi Mana said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing which was mixed with oil from picked olives.

Rebbi Mana said, they taught only “for seeds”; therefore, for eating he is free. Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; he is obligated for seeds or for consumption because this is their threshing floor. Rebbi Ḥanina said, because he would transfer it from second to the poor or from the poor to second.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand it would be fine.

It was stated: If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, abandonment, dedication, and Syria are in dispute between Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages about budding and growing roots. If somebody sowed a dry spot, it grew one-third ripe, and he made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is obligated; according to the Sages any later growth is free. If he sowed in a house, removed the roof, and then made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is free; according to the Sages any later growth is obligated.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and against Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.

So is the Mishnah: The seeds on the stem of arum. Some woman had heave purslain on a block. They fell into a garden and sprouted. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan who permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, is this not the Mishnah: “And these may be eaten if their father was heave?” He said to him, Babylonian, when you cleared a potsherd for yourself, you found a pearl! You said, is that not the Mishnah!

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “One may exchange Second Tithe for a blank, the words of Rebbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid it.” What is Rebbi Dosa’s reason? (Deut. 14:25) “You should bundle the money;” something which is bundled together, or which has a form and is current because of its form. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Yose that one exchanges [Second] Tithe for a pound of silver. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have said just as he said silver, so he said gold. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have taught to exclude broken pots and baskets from which one could get a pound of silver.

A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange. If he had dangerous coins: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange. If he had dangerous coins: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An animal of Second Tithe in Jerusalem following Rebbi Meїr is free from the rules of firstlings; following Rebbi Jehudah it is under the rules of firstlings. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If it gave birth to a firstling, must its sacred parts be brought onto the altar? Did not its sacred parts fall under the rules of Second Tithe and you would hide it from being eaten? He said to him, if somebody bought meat as meat of desire, would not [the holiness of] Second Tithe have fallen on its sacred parts, would you not hide it from being eaten? He said to him, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Yose said, we were not saying so but the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively. What is the difference between them? If it gave birth to a firstling and he dedicated it as well-being sacrifice. For him who says, the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively, it is offered. For him who says, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it, and it is not offered.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.” ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: He who whispers puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: with hand or vessel. In what do they differ? Whether it is repulsive. For him who says with hand or vessel, it is repulsive. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, it is not repulsive. Rebbi Jonah said, they differ about Second Tithe. For him who says with hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, Second Tithe is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, is all that is permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and all that is forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? Did we not state: A woman may douse her son with wine because of sweat, but this is forbidden with heave? Heave and Second Tithe are the same! How is that? Only that he not do it in the way he is used to do it on weekdays.

“If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, it follows Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.” The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rebbi Jehudah? Rebbi Jehudah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

HALAKHAH: How were they lenient for heave? As we have stated: “A Cohen may rub himself with heave oil and bring his daughter’s son by an Israel and roll him on his belly without qualms.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, here they retorted with rabbinic words against the word of the Torah.

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

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

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them. If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it. The Mishnah breaks: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal.