cohanim

When is Neïlah? The rabbis of Caesarea say: Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan disagree. Rav said, when the gates of Heaven are locked. And Rebbi Yoḥanan said, when the gates of the Temple are locked. Rebbi Yudan Antordaya said: A Mishnah supports Rebbi Yoḥanan (Taäniot 4:1): “On three occasions do the Cohanim lift their hands four times in one day, mornings, Musaph, Minḥah, and at the locking of the gates: on fastdays, at support services, and on Yom Kippur. May you say that the gates of heaven are locked while it is still daytime?

MISHNAH: He who stands before the arc should not answer Amen after the Cohanim because of the distraction. If there is no Cohen there but him, he should not lift his hands. But if he is sure that he can lift his hands and return to his prayer, he may do so.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥuma ben Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simlai: They lift their hands in a town where all are Cohanim. Whom do they bless? Their brethren in North, South, East, and West. Who answers Amen after them? Women and small children.

Abbaye ben Rebbi Benjamin stated: Those who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in their blessing. Those who stand before the Cohanim; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said the blessing even cuts through an iron wall. About those who stand on the side, we may understand from the following: If he wanted to sprinkle before him and he sprinkled behind him, behind him and he sprinkled before him, his sprinkling is invalid. Before him and he sprinkled on his sides, his sprinkling is valid. This implies that those who stand on the side are included in the blessing.

Abbaye ben Rebbi Benjamin stated: Those who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in their blessing. Those who stand before the Cohanim; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said the blessing even cuts through an iron wall. About those who stand on the side, we may understand from the following: If he wanted to sprinkle before him and he sprinkled behind him, behind him and he sprinkled before him, his sprinkling is invalid. Before him and he sprinkled on his sides, his sprinkling is valid. This implies that those who stand on the side are included in the blessing.

Rav Ḥisda said, the organizer must be an Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if there was one Cohen he calls “Cohen”, if there are two they call “Cohanim”. Rav Ḥisda said, even if there was only one Cohen he says “Cohanim”, because he only calls the tribe.

Rav Ḥisda said, the organizer must be an Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if there was one Cohen he calls “Cohen”, if there are two they call “Cohanim”. Rav Ḥisda said, even if there was only one Cohen he says “Cohanim”, because he only calls the tribe.

Samuel went to visit Rav and saw him eating with his hands covered by cloth. He asked him, what is that? He answered him, I am asthenic. When Rebbi Zeïra immigrated here, he saw Cohanim eating with their hands covered by cloth. He told them, was not that of Rav and Samuel explained away? Rebbi Yose bar bar Cahana came in the name of Samuel: Handwashing is for profane food, not for terumah. Rebbi Yose says, for terumah and for profane food.

If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another, Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may not eat terumah, in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah. Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel, he may not eat terumah; maybe the giver will recuperate.

“Cohanim who prepare dough in purity should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year.” Some Tannaïm stated: “They should be inquisitive.” Rebbi Phineas said, he who says that they should be inquisitive, because of their ḥallah; he who says that they should not be inquisitive, for he would save him from the simple sin and lead him to a deadly one. Ṭevel is a deadly sin, the Sabbatical year is a simple prohibition.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who buys loose produce from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe. But he who buys produce still in the ground from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and does not take money from the tribe. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you remove the tithe from the Children of Israel.” From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the hand of a Gentile.

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Zeïra went to the hot springs of Pella and found himself outside of the “Babylonian date palms”. He sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked the two sons of Rebbi Eviatar from Dama who said to him, Cohanim are used to go there. The Cohanim asked Rebbi Joḥanan about that strip around Naveh. Rebbi Joḥanan said to them in the name of Rebbi Onias from Ḥauran: Cohanim are used to go there up to Edrei, and in the region of Bostra up to the orchard.

Rebbi Zeïra went to the hot springs of Pella and found himself outside of the “Babylonian date palms”. He sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked the two sons of Rebbi Eviatar from Dama who said to him, Cohanim are used to go there. The Cohanim asked Rebbi Joḥanan about that strip around Naveh. Rebbi Joḥanan said to them in the name of Rebbi Onias from Ḥauran: Cohanim are used to go there up to Edrei, and in the region of Bostra up to the orchard.

Rebbi Zeïra went to the hot springs of Pella and found himself outside of the “Babylonian date palms”. He sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked the two sons of Rebbi Eviatar from Dama who said to him, Cohanim are used to go there. The Cohanim asked Rebbi Joḥanan about that strip around Naveh. Rebbi Joḥanan said to them in the name of Rebbi Onias from Ḥauran: Cohanim are used to go there up to Edrei, and in the region of Bostra up to the orchard.

Rebbi Abbahu said: There are Samaritan places permitted since the days of Joshua bin Nun and they remain permitted. Rebbi Yose inquired: If that is so, Cohanim should not worry about their ḥallah. But we see that rabbis worry! Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, it is not because of what you said, but because it never was absolutely under government control.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time, or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable.” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat. How is that? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here.

There, we have stated: “One may not give heave from impure for pure produce.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If he gave heave from impure for pure produce, what he did is done.” What does Rebbi Yose say here? If there, where all is lost for the Cohanim, he says that what he did is done, here, where not all is lost for the Cohanim, so much more? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say it contains their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.” Rebbi Yose contradicts himself. There he says, what he did is done; here he says, his heave is not heave. There, impurity is infrequent and people will not err to say that one may give heave from the impure on the pure produce. But olives for oil and grapes for wine is frequent; if you say so, one will say that one may give heave of olives for oil and grapes for wine.

There, we have stated: “One may not give heave from impure for pure produce.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If he gave heave from impure for pure produce, what he did is done.” What does Rebbi Yose say here? If there, where all is lost for the Cohanim, he says that what he did is done, here, where not all is lost for the Cohanim, so much more? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say it contains their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.” Rebbi Yose contradicts himself. There he says, what he did is done; here he says, his heave is not heave. There, impurity is infrequent and people will not err to say that one may give heave from the impure on the pure produce. But olives for oil and grapes for wine is frequent; if you say so, one will say that one may give heave of olives for oil and grapes for wine.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeїra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

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

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

Rebbi Yose asked: If he dedicated sheaves of his [harvest] and they were switched, do even so poor Israel and poor Cohanim collect?

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.

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.

“One may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.” But one may use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it. Why can one not use its meat for preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose said, they learned tithe only from Cohanim’s bans. Since one may not use Cohanim’s bans for preliminary marriage, one may not use any sacrifices for preliminary marriage. Then one should not be able to use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. One needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it.

“One may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.” But one may use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it. Why can one not use its meat for preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose said, they learned tithe only from Cohanim’s bans. Since one may not use Cohanim’s bans for preliminary marriage, one may not use any sacrifices for preliminary marriage. Then one should not be able to use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. One needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it.

It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should be eaten.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ sacrifice in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know that this is so since we have stated: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted”, but we have stated: “One lowers the Pesaḥ sacrifice into the oven at nightfall.”

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.”

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.”

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.”

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.”

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.”

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 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 Yannai ordered his relatives, when you lease a field, lease only from lay people since even if you say one does not give tithes to Cohanim you have to agree that one does not take his own out of his hand. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you take from the Children of Israel the tithe which I gave you from them as your inheritance, you should lift from it the heave of the Eternal, a tithe of the tithe.” From the Children of Israel you take out but not from those contracting with Cohanim or Levites. It parallels what Rebbi Eleazar said, “if you take the tithe from the Children of Israel,” from the Children of Israel you take out but not from the Gentile.

Rebbi Yannai ordered his relatives, when you lease a field, lease only from lay people since even if you say one does not give tithes to Cohanim you have to agree that one does not take his own out of his hand. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you take from the Children of Israel the tithe which I gave you from them as your inheritance, you should lift from it the heave of the Eternal, a tithe of the tithe.” From the Children of Israel you take out but not from those contracting with Cohanim or Levites. It parallels what Rebbi Eleazar said, “if you take the tithe from the Children of Israel,” from the Children of Israel you take out but not from the Gentile.

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 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.

That means that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. There is a difference, since Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah was there. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it means that Rabban Gamliel had to transfer. Rebbi Joshua said, for produce standing on the ground. Even if Rabban Gamliel’s box were standing in Rebbi Joshua’s house and he would say, he should acquire its tithe, would he have done anything if he did not label it?

MISHNAH: In the afternoon of the holiday they made the declaration. How was the declaration? (Deut. 26:13) “I removed the holy produce from the house,” is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is ḥallah. “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it. (Deut. 26:14) “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning;” therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity;” therefore if he separtated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it. (Deut. 26:15) “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven,” we did what You decided for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our forefathers, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits. Because of this, they said that Israel persons and Mamzerim may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rebbi Meïr says, also excluding Cohanim or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

“I gave it to the Levite,” from here that one does not give tithe to Cohanim.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

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.

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.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

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.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

MISHNAH: Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim. If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.

MISHNAH: Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim. If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.

MISHNAH: Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim. If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.

MISHNAH: Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim. If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: “If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

HALAKHAH: “If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

HALAKHAH: “If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: What is the difference between heave with regard to lay people and Sabbatical produce with regard to Cohanim? Heave for lay people is forbidden; is Sabbatical produce for Cohanim permitted? Rebbi Joḥanan came back and said, explain it that heave sourdough fell in first; the Sabbatical produce did only spoil.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: What is the difference between heave with regard to lay people and Sabbatical produce with regard to Cohanim? Heave for lay people is forbidden; is Sabbatical produce for Cohanim permitted? Rebbi Joḥanan came back and said, explain it that heave sourdough fell in first; the Sabbatical produce did only spoil.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

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 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.

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.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

It was stated: First Fruits one in sixty. The first of shearings, one in sixty. Impure heave, one in sixty. Rebbi Ismael stated: First Fruits one in sixty. Peah one in sixty. The first of shearings, one in sixty. Impure heave, one in sixty. Heave for which the Cohanim do not care, one in sixty. What do you have? E. g., the heave of kelesin, carob, and red barley.

The ark is facing the people, the Cohanim are facing the people, and the people face the holy.

MISHNAH: The fife beats before them until they arrive at the Temple Mount. Arrived at the Temple Mount, even king Agrippas takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he arrives at the Temple courtyard. When they arrived at the Temple courtyard, the Levites sang (Ps. 30:2): “I shall elevate You, Eternal, for You drew me up and You did not make my enemies happy because of me.” The pigeons on the baskets were elevation sacrifices and what was in their hands they gave to the Cohanim. As long as the basket is still on his shoulder he reads from (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today before the Eternal, your God” until he finishes the entire paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says, until (v. 5): “My father was a wandering Aramean.” When he comes to “my father was a wandering Aramean”, he takes the basket down from his shoulder, holds it by its rim, and the Cohen puts his hand under it and weaves it. Then he reads from “my father was a wandering Aramean” until he finishes the entire paragraph, he puts it down next to the altar, prostrates himself, and leaves. In earlier times, everybody who knew how to read, read, and everybody who did not know how to read, had someone read before him. When they refrained from bringing they instituted that one read before him who knew and him who did not know. Rich people bring their First Fruits in bowls of silver and gold but poor people bring them in baskets of stripped willow twigs. Baskets and First Fruits are given to the Cohanim.

MISHNAH: The fife beats before them until they arrive at the Temple Mount. Arrived at the Temple Mount, even king Agrippas takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he arrives at the Temple courtyard. When they arrived at the Temple courtyard, the Levites sang (Ps. 30:2): “I shall elevate You, Eternal, for You drew me up and You did not make my enemies happy because of me.” The pigeons on the baskets were elevation sacrifices and what was in their hands they gave to the Cohanim. As long as the basket is still on his shoulder he reads from (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today before the Eternal, your God” until he finishes the entire paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says, until (v. 5): “My father was a wandering Aramean.” When he comes to “my father was a wandering Aramean”, he takes the basket down from his shoulder, holds it by its rim, and the Cohen puts his hand under it and weaves it. Then he reads from “my father was a wandering Aramean” until he finishes the entire paragraph, he puts it down next to the altar, prostrates himself, and leaves. In earlier times, everybody who knew how to read, read, and everybody who did not know how to read, had someone read before him. When they refrained from bringing they instituted that one read before him who knew and him who did not know. Rich people bring their First Fruits in bowls of silver and gold but poor people bring them in baskets of stripped willow twigs. Baskets and First Fruits are given to the Cohanim.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rebbi Jehudah ben Titus, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rebbi Ismael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rebbi Aqiba said, he may not finish.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The Cohanim for heave used to follow Rebbi Ismael.”

MISHNAH: One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe from which heave has been taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was redeemed; Cohanim with ḥallah and with heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe from which heave was not taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was not redeemed. If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor, or by somebody who does not accept eruvin, it is not an eruv. If he told a third person to receive it from him it is an eruv.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One ties strings in the Temple but not in the countryside.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, if a broken violin string is tied it does not give a sound, but he strings from above and makes a loop below. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and musical instruments obstruct the sacrifice.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, says, the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat which became impure by derivative impurity with meat which became impure by original impurity even though they added impurity to it.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, says, the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat which became impure by derivative impurity with meat which became impure by original impurity even though they added impurity to it.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a ṭevul-yom in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it.