evel

It was stated: It may be eaten in strict mourning but not in impurity. What is the difference between strict mourning and impurity? Rav Naḥman said, impurity is frequent, strict mourning is infrequent. They made a decree for a frequent situation, they did not decree for an infrequent situation. Rebbi Yose said, they did not even make it similar to a doubt of ṭevel. Since for a doubt of ṭevel, whether Second Tithe was given in order, or maybe Second Tithe was not given in order, is that not forbidden for the strict mourner? But here, it is permitted to the mourner.

It was stated: It may be eaten in strict mourning but not in impurity. What is the difference between strict mourning and impurity? Rav Naḥman said, impurity is frequent, strict mourning is infrequent. They made a decree for a frequent situation, they did not decree for an infrequent situation. Rebbi Yose said, they did not even make it similar to a doubt of ṭevel. Since for a doubt of ṭevel, whether Second Tithe was given in order, or maybe Second Tithe was not given in order, is that not forbidden for the strict mourner? But here, it is permitted to the mourner.

It was stated: One does not sow ṭevel, one may not cover ṭevel, but one covers ṭevel with a Gentile. If one forgot and sowed ṭevel, he is free, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it turns into something that usually is not collected.

It was stated: One does not sow ṭevel, one may not cover ṭevel, but one covers ṭevel with a Gentile. If one forgot and sowed ṭevel, he is free, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it turns into something that usually is not collected.

It was stated: One does not sow ṭevel, one may not cover ṭevel, but one covers ṭevel with a Gentile. If one forgot and sowed ṭevel, he is free, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it turns into something that usually is not collected.

It was stated: One does not sow ṭevel, one may not cover ṭevel, but one covers ṭevel with a Gentile. If one forgot and sowed ṭevel, he is free, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it turns into something that usually is not collected.

Rebbi Jeremiah sent Rebbi Zeïra a basket of figs that were not put in order. Rebbi Jeremiah said to himself, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Zeïra said to himself, it is impossible that Rebbi Jeremiah would send me anything that was not put in order. In the meantime, ṭevel was eaten. The next day, when he was with him, he asked him: Was that basket you sent me put in order? He answered him, I said, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? He answered, I also said, would Rebbi Jeremiah send me anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: From whom did this man buy? If from a Jew it is demay, from a Gentile certain. Explain that if the trader was a Gentile and both Jew and Gentile deliver to him, it is demay. Rav Hoshaia objected, does not the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan? As it was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, they only mentioned pomegranates from Badan and grain from Geba because they must be tithed as certain everywhere.” What are we talking about? If he bought from a Jew, can it be pronounced certain? But we must deal with a Gentile. Hence, all other things are tithed as demay. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, we deal with certain produce from a Jew. Explain it that there was a powerful overseer of markets who exerted pressure to sell at low prices, and they permitted him to sell ṭevel and let the buyer beware for himself.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

“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 Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place? He said to him, for all that is in it. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing Rebbi Aḥa.

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “ He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together takes for heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah, that is one in 20, and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane ṭevel and another one in 48 next to it; the remainder is heave for everything. The profane which is in it and that which I made profane ṭevel is made tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, the Second Tithe is North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.”

HALAKHAH: “ He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together takes for heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah, that is one in 20, and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane ṭevel and another one in 48 next to it; the remainder is heave for everything. The profane which is in it and that which I made profane ṭevel is made tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, the Second Tithe is North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.”

“What is here on this side is profane ṭevel.” Why does he not say, what is here on this side is tithe? He would precede. Why does he not say, that on this side is heave? It would turn out that either he diminishes or increases the heave. Since he says, what is here on this side is profane ṭevel, whether he diminishes or increases the heave does not matter.

“What is here on this side is profane ṭevel.” Why does he not say, what is here on this side is tithe? He would precede. Why does he not say, that on this side is heave? It would turn out that either he diminishes or increases the heave. Since he says, what is here on this side is profane ṭevel, whether he diminishes or increases the heave does not matter.

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

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

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

MISHNAH: He who buys ṭevel from two sources may tithe from one for the other even though they said that nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need.

MISHNAH: He who buys ṭevel from two sources may tithe from one for the other even though they said that nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him and tithes for him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him and tithes for him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him and tithes for him.

Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Otherwise, we would say, between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon. But because it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, once some produce that was ṭevel was mixed up with my produce. I asked Rebbi Ṭarphon, and he told me: Go and buy from a Gentile and tithe for it.” On that we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe.” Lest you think that this case has two opposed by two. Therefore, he had to say that practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, three may tithe without permission: He whose ṭevel was mixed with profane produce. And he who buys from the division of the Samaritans. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that he does not take money from the tribe. If you say that he takes money from the tribe, he tithed with permission!

“If a Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

“If a Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

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

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

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

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

Where are we at? If he says it beforehand, the drink is mixed. If he says, when I shall have drunk, before that he drank ṭevel. What we are dealing with is that he says beforehand: When I shall have drunk. But does he then not move impure heave on the Sabbath? Rebbi Eleazar said, he leaves some profane, as what we have stated there: “One moves pure heave with impure one and with profane food.” But that does not compare. There, the impure is for the needs of the pure, but here the profane is for the needs of the impure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when he sets down the cup it will be holy.

There, we have stated: “Is somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Is our Mishnah not following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is ṭevel. If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

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

Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that.

MISHNAH: If somebody had ṭevel figs in his house but was in the House of Study or on the field, he says: Two figs that I shall separate in the future shall be heave, ten tithe, and nine heave of the tithe. If they were demay, he says: That which I shall separate in the future shall be tithe tomorrow, the rest of tithe near to it. That which I made tithe shall be heave of the tithe for all, and the Second Tithe shall be to the North (or to the South) and be redeemed by coins.

We have stated: “One may move both pure and impure heave.” Rebbi Zeïra said, it means that one is permitted to move ṭevel that has a condition on it on the Sabbath. What does he do? He thinks about a part of it and eats the rest.

MISHNAH: If he had before him two baskets of ṭevel and he said, the tithes of one are in the other and those of the other in the one, the first one is tithed; (if he said) their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one, he gave it a name.

MISHNAH: A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110. A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, ninety ṭevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that ṭevel is more, he did not lose anything.

MISHNAH: A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110. A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, ninety ṭevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that ṭevel is more, he did not lose anything.

MISHNAH: A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110. A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, ninety ṭevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that ṭevel is more, he did not lose anything.

MISHNAH: A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110. A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, ninety ṭevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that ṭevel is more, he did not lose anything.

MISHNAH: A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110. A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, ninety ṭevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that ṭevel is more, he did not lose anything.

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

Rebbi Mana said, they differ with Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. As he stated: “Ṭevel mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out. Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked: Why can he not crack them? Rebbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not to start out with.

Rebbi Jonah said, so is the Mishnah: Anytime that ṭevel is more than the tithe, tithe does not lose anything.

Rebbi Levinti in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Any ṭevel mentioned here is ṭevel for first and second tithes.

Rebbi Levinti in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Any ṭevel mentioned here is ṭevel for first and second tithes.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi and Rebbi Dositheos the son of Rebbi Yannai disagree. One says, he takes the second tithe from another place, but the other one says, he makes all of it second tithe and takes the first tithe from another place. What are we talking about? “A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, he takes 92 minus one tenth. A hundred ṭevel and eighty tithe, he takes 83 minus two tenths. Other quantities proportionally.”

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi and Rebbi Dositheos the son of Rebbi Yannai disagree. One says, he takes the second tithe from another place, but the other one says, he makes all of it second tithe and takes the first tithe from another place. What are we talking about? “A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, he takes 92 minus one tenth. A hundred ṭevel and eighty tithe, he takes 83 minus two tenths. Other quantities proportionally.”

It was stated: “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was ṭevel and one of impure tithe which was ṭevel, he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it only at the end.” What is the reason of Rebbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first. And what is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt. If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion. What is the reason of Rebbi? That he should not be led into drinking a reviït. According to the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, he drinks less than a reviït. Is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a reviït? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rebbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end.

It was stated: “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was ṭevel and one of impure tithe which was ṭevel, he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it only at the end.” What is the reason of Rebbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first. And what is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt. If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion. What is the reason of Rebbi? That he should not be led into drinking a reviït. According to the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, he drinks less than a reviït. Is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a reviït? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rebbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end.

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

“ ‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave. Let us hear from the following: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his ṭevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rebbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner. This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person.

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

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

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

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

Did we not state: “But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “A person may measure his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by measure. A person may weigh his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not weigh by weight. A person may count his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by count.”

Did we not state: “But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “A person may measure his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by measure. A person may weigh his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not weigh by weight. A person may count his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by count.”

Did we not state: “But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “A person may measure his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by measure. A person may weigh his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not weigh by weight. A person may count his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by count.”

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce, like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce, like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce, like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law.

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap [of grain]. If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other. Rebbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error, his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has ṭevel tithe which he continually uses to give, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he had known of it earlier, even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten. He who plants on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, about what was this said? About Great Heave which must be given from what is earmarked. But for the heave of the tithe, everything is supposed to be whole. If he gave Great Heave and heave of the tithe together, it is not whole.” Jehudah ben Rebbi said, he certainly did not want to overstep the words of the Torah in giving heave of the tithe before the Great Heave. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Did we not state that “one may not give heave from impure produce for pure”? Think about it, when he did it and said, I did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if you say so, you let him flee from a minor sin to a major one! Ṭevel is a deadly sin, but an impure person who ate pure food oversteps a positive commandment.

In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the seah of the first one is half ṭevel and half heave containing undistributed tithes. The seah of the second is half heave and half total ṭevel. That does not seem necessary: may the half seah of the second free the half seah of the first? Let us hear from the following: Ariston brought produce, left some in the sack, and gave heave. The case came before Rebbi Yose; he said it is a standing assumption that he gave heave for everything.

In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the seah of the first one is half ṭevel and half heave containing undistributed tithes. The seah of the second is half heave and half total ṭevel. That does not seem necessary: may the half seah of the second free the half seah of the first? Let us hear from the following: Ariston brought produce, left some in the sack, and gave heave. The case came before Rebbi Yose; he said it is a standing assumption that he gave heave for everything.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

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

What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult: If he took [produce] with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took [produce] with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is ṭevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is ṭevel. If he added, both together came into his hand.

What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult: If he took [produce] with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took [produce] with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is ṭevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is ṭevel. If he added, both together came into his hand.

What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult: If he took [produce] with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took [produce] with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is ṭevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is ṭevel. If he added, both together came into his hand.

What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult: If he took [produce] with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took [produce] with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is ṭevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is ṭevel. If he added, both together came into his hand.

Also if he is in error it is so. If he thought that two se’ot were due but he owed only one, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That [extra] seah which he separated he gives as heave for another place. But did we not state: “but not for another place”? Explain it if he increased the heave. It is acceptable if he increased the heave, but what about tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not state about tithes. But the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must be that, since we say that all the ṭevel is now in his hands, what is the difference between taking from it its own heave or that for another place?

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?

HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?

HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who swallows heave vinegar is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who chews a wheat grain of heave is whipped. It was stated: He who chews a wheat grain of heave pays the principal but not the fifth; Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: The Sages agree with Rebbi about him who swallows heave vinegar after such ṭevel, that he pays principal and fifth because vinegar refreshes the spirit.

HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel.