bar

Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of] the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (Num. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (2Chr. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe. A person asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (2Chr. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe. A person asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (2Chr. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe. A person asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his ṭevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

Rebbi Huna bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Alexandros: Come and see the power of those who keep the Commandments because all “lookings down” in the Torah are curses but this one is in the language of blessing. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, not only that but it is written (Deut. 26:16) “this day,” the condition of every day.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi started with this: (Ps. 71:16): “I shall come in strength, Eternal, God.” It is written (Zach. 4:14): “These are the two oil-sons who stand over the Lord of all the earth.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, these are the ones who come in novitiate before the Holy One, praised be He. The other one says, these are the ones who come by the power of [kept] commandments and good deeds before the Holy One.

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

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

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed: If somebody ground and mixed piggul and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden. If one made five doughs from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

Did we not state: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine. If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away.

There, they were apprehensive to have the great fast for two days. Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you bring yourselves into that great uncertainty. One may trust that the Court is never lazy. The father of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was apprehensive for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one whips because of their ḥallah as a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say one volume of an olive of all of them. It is different since the category of “leavened” applies to all of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted. There, he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one whips because of their ḥallah as a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say one volume of an olive of all of them. It is different since the category of “leavened” applies to all of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted. There, he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another.”

“Second Tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rebbi Hillel ben Vales argued in the name of Rebbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave”.

It is obvious: For the rabbis, that “less than a third” is not dragged in concerning the matter of tithes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rebbi Eleazar, is it dragged in in the matter of ḥallah like a rice dough? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for ḥallah? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for ḥallah and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses are two for ḥallah and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for ḥallah and tithes.

It is obvious: For the rabbis, that “less than a third” is not dragged in concerning the matter of tithes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rebbi Eleazar, is it dragged in in the matter of ḥallah like a rice dough? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for ḥallah? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for ḥallah and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses are two for ḥallah and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for ḥallah and tithes.

“Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated”. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zwieback. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Agul in the name of Ḥizqiah said boqrlṭa. That you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, dough for the sick is obligated for ḥallah, that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, ḥallah might be profane, I would say it is permitted to wait with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, ḥallah might be profane, I would say it is permitted to wait with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth”.

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (Jos. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (Num. 33:3): “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth?

It has been stated: “Water before the meal is conditional, after the meal it is obligatory. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts; for the second he takes and may not interrupt.” What does he interrupt? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac asked: “He takes and interrupts” and you say it is conditional? One requires four mil and you say it is conditional?

It has been stated: “Water before the meal is conditional, after the meal it is obligatory. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts; for the second he takes and may not interrupt.” What does he interrupt? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac asked: “He takes and interrupts” and you say it is conditional? One requires four mil and you say it is conditional?

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said: Because of the first, pork was eaten. Because of the second, a woman had to leave her house; some say, three persons were killed because of it.

HALAKHAH: How is this? Less that four mil he should make it in purity, four mil he sould make single qabim, or four mil he should make it in purity, more than four mil he sould make single qabim? Let us hear from the following, since Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, for example Caesarea. Is Caesarea not four mil? That means, four mil he should make it in purity, more than four mil he sould make single qabim. Rebbi Ammi instructed in Kefar Sammai to make a large dough in impurity. Is that not less than four mil? Since a brook interrupts it is as if there were four mil. This teaching follows Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim. It was a large dough and it would have been easier for him to walk a distance than to make it single qabim.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it is never subject to ḥallah unless it contain the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. In this case, since the bran was removed and then put in again, it is not the way dough is made.

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

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?

There, we have stated: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are exempted because they were potentially obligated but exempted. A Jew and a Gentile made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten? Do I read for this (Lev. 2:3): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read (Num. 18:28) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”.

They said, Rebbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question. What is the difference between him who takes from itself for itself and him who takes from it for another place? When he takes from itself for itself, since this ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear. When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear. Rebbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear.

But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends.

HALAKHAH: “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind. They gave to one woman who minds the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour], she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree?

“ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

This means that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots for carrots at a place where [the leaves] are eaten. This happened with Gamliel the twin who had forgotten to put his carrots in order. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery!

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you said that there are two ḥallot in Syria, should there not be two heaves in Syria? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, there comes nothing after ḥallah but after heave there comes something. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates were ṭevel for tithes!

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, when the people of the Diaspora arrive at Taurus Amanus they will sing. What is the reason? (Cant. 4:8) “Sing from the top of Amanah”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They decided about these and turned them back to their places of origin. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this is impossible. One may not eat it lest people say we saw impure heave being eaten. One may not burn it lest people say we saw pure heave being burned. One may not return it to its place of origin lest people say we saw heave being exported from the Land. What to do? He lets it lie until Passover eve and burns it.

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (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 abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (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 abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (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 abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqola in the name of Ḥizqia: If somebody plants in a flower pot without a hole, it is subject to ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, because the roots break through it. Rebbi Jonah uses the expression: Clay vessels withstand roots. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he planted a gourd in it, since it is as if there were a hole for trees, is it like as if with a hole for vegetables?

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected to the old one? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they differ in the uninformed case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know? Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned towards the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned towards the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanin said, a sign: He who eats from his neighbor’s is ashamed to look at him. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

“Anqoqlot and the grape skins.” Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis in the name of Rav: Grapes which went bad before they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even after they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is a stenographic expression: “Grapes becoming bad at a third.”

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not also state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state “ḥallah”? Should we not state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state: “Heave, heave of the tithe and heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Samuel: Demay does not need ḥallah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said to him, one takes its value from the tribe. He answered him, that is what Samuel said, one takes its value from the tribe. Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yose: One does not take its value from the tribe; tomorrow he will bring certain [ḥallah] and say it is demay in order to take its value from the tribe!

Here, you say one has to lift, but there you say, one does not have to lift! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because of robbing the tribe. Also, it was stated thus: “Any heave for which the Cohanim do not care, e. g., the heave of kelesin, carob, and red barley, one does not have to lift.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There is meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What means, he accepted that? Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Why is “Land, Land” written twice? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things. Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman, one says for benedictions, the other says for measures. He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: “A shiny mark the size of half a bean”? That is not reliable. “The size of a lentil from a crawling thing”? That is not reliable.

HALAKHAH: : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but: Why did they say “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: “If he pronounced the benediction ‘Creator of the fruit of the soil’ on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: If somebody sold him a field with its standing crop, may the buyer bring First Fruits? He said to him, why not? That is, when it is moist; even when it is dry? He said to him, even dry, even harvested. Then even wheat grain; do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits?

“If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the First Fruits became impure, the baskets are given to the priests since it is said (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

“If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the First Fruits became impure, the baskets are given to the priests since it is said (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

“At 60, it is the death written in the Torah.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is written (Deut. 1:35): “If any male among these people, this evil generation, should see.” Think of it, if anybody left Egypt at age 20 and then was in the desert for 40 years when he died, you find that the death written in the Torah is at age 60. And it is written (Job. 5:26): “You shall come into your grave bklḥ.”

What did you see to assert that he who dies in three days dies from the plague? Hilfai the grandson of Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard the voice of my grandfather who preached (1S. 25:38): “It was like the ten days that the Eternal smote Nabal and he died.” The Holy One, praise to Him, suspended His judgment during the seven days of mourning for Samuel, that mourning for him and for the just person should not overlap; then he lingered another three days and died. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: It is not written “after ten days” but “like the ten days”; The Holy One, praise to Him, suspended His judgment for ten days, like the Ten Days between New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, that he should repent, but he did not.

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally, whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.