evel

Does this not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, it is forbidden to eat. Explain it if he makes his vat in the field. It is still difficult: If salting induces ṭevel, why do we need taking together, if taking together induces, why do we need salting? It must be both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was stated: He should not give heave. If he transgressed and gave heave, Rebbi Berekhia said, he is empowered. Rebbi Mana said, he is not empowered; that heave he gave creates ṭevel for tithe.

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

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

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

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the student. Rebbi Zeïra said, only for produce which is ṭevel as demai. But [tithe of] demai itself is already grabbed by the enclosure.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports Second Tithe produce,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they said only “if somebody transports”; therefore originally it is forbidden. This is about Second Tithe produce, but for produce which is ṭevel for Second Tithe it is originally permitted, following this: Rebbi had produce here and in Batanaia; he fixed the tithes of here there and redeemed them according to the going price there.

“He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it was his own or was given to him as a gift.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says, a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Jonah said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it with produce still ṭevel for tithes. But did we not state: “He who redeems his own fourth-year tree adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift”? Can you say that this speaks about produce still ṭevel for (Second Tithe? We have stated) “fourth-year tree!” That means the fourth-year tree itself! So here, you will end up saying “tithe”.

“He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it was his own or was given to him as a gift.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says, a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Jonah said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it with produce still ṭevel for tithes. But did we not state: “He who redeems his own fourth-year tree adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift”? Can you say that this speaks about produce still ṭevel for (Second Tithe? We have stated) “fourth-year tree!” That means the fourth-year tree itself! So here, you will end up saying “tithe”.

MISHNAH: All found coins are profane, even gold denars with silver or change. If one found with them a potsherd reading “tithe”, it is tithe. If one finds a vessel inscribed “sacrifice”, Rebbi Jehudah said, if it was pottery it is profane and its contents sacrifice, but if it was metal it is sacrifice and its contents profane. They said to him, people do not put profane in sacrifice [vessels]. If one finds a vessel inscribed ק it means sacrifice, מ tithe, ד demay, ט ṭevel, ת heave since in times of danger one wrote ת for heave. Rebbi Yose says, all these are people’s names. Rebbi Yose said, even if he found an amphora full of produce and inscribed “heave”, these are profane since I say last year it was full of tithe produce but he emptied it. If somebody said to his son, “Second Tithe is in that corner” but he found it in another corner, that is profane. “There is a talent” but he found 200, the remainder is profane. “200” and he found 100, all is tithe.

HALAKHAH: Is it not ṭevel? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that ṭevel is called holy.

HALAKHAH: Is it not ṭevel? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that ṭevel is called holy.

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

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

What are the rules “in between”? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. From where that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (Num. 15:20) “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,” from ḥallah you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to ḥallah? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift ḥallah”.

“The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt,” for it is written “the first of your baking troughs;” “to sell on the market he is obligated”, it does not depend on his intention but on that of his customers. Maybe he will find a customer; therefore, it becomes ṭevel immediately.

HALAKHAH: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

HALAKHAH: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.

If the dough is ḥallah. But a dough of secondary [impurity] has no [invalidating] touch for ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rebbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra] in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated: Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101.” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place.

Rebbi Yose said, the statement is reasonable on Sabbath eves; since everybody is bringing, it is as if she separated from what is obligated for what is obligated. But on weekdays, while they instituted that ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated? Rebbi Jonah said, it is only reasonable on weekdays, but on Sabbath eve she would have to say “all, including the impure.” Why? Since [some dough] is taken before all is one mass, when all is made into one mass the former is sanctified as ḥallah. If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, does it not become dedicated retroactively? Since it is dedicated retroactively, it is as if one gave from what is obligated for the obligated.

Rebbi Yose said, the statement is reasonable on Sabbath eves; since everybody is bringing, it is as if she separated from what is obligated for what is obligated. But on weekdays, while they instituted that ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated? Rebbi Jonah said, it is only reasonable on weekdays, but on Sabbath eve she would have to say “all, including the impure.” Why? Since [some dough] is taken before all is one mass, when all is made into one mass the former is sanctified as ḥallah. If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, does it not become dedicated retroactively? Since it is dedicated retroactively, it is as if one gave from what is obligated for the obligated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was stated: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel.

It was stated: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe.

“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe.

“ If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews?

“ If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews?

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

It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.

They asked at the House of Rebbi Yannai: Does a gourd which was cooked while connected to the ground create ṭevel for tithes? Levi asked, can it become impure as food? If it was cooked it is as if cut into pieces. The word of Samuel says that it becomes impure as food, as Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Samuel: Figs and raisins which shriveled on the tree may become impure as food and anybody who takes them down on the Sabbath is guilty of harvesting.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, “the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state: “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits? He said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.

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.

MISHNAH: One removes even four or five baskets of straw or of grain because of guests or because of obstruction of the House of Study, but not the storehouse. One removes pure heave, and demay, and First Tithe of which its heave was taken, and Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and dry lupines because it is food of the poor; but not ṭevel, nor First Tithe whose heave was not taken, nor Second Tithe and sancta which were not redeemed, nor serpentary, nor mustard seed. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits serpentary because it is food of ravens.

Rebbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a 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 a 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. What is to be done? “From before I shall separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I shall eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I shall deposit it in a corner.”

It was stated: One may move both pure and impure heave. Rebbi Zeˋira 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: 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.

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

There we have stated: “A flask which had been immersed on the same day and [they filled it] from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said that this shall be heave of the tithe after nightfall then it is heave of the tithe. If he said this is eruv, he did not say anything.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥama bar (Aqiba) [Uqba] asked, is this Mishnah not following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, one does not make an eruv for a person after nightfall? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: There it is everybody’s opinion. But here he acquires a place for Sabbath rest for two days while it still is a working day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it was Thursday and he said, this should acquire for me a place for Sabbath rest, in Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion he acquired, in (Rav’s) [the rabbis’] opinion did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose said, why can a person not make an eruv from holiday to Sabbath? Because a person makes an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath. But here, since he can make an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath, he may make an eruv even from Thursday to the Sabbath. “Rebbi Eliezer said to them, do you not agree with me that if he used a loaf to make an eruv for the first day, that he may use a loaf to make an eruv for the second day, that if he ate it on the first day it is an eruv for the first day but is not an eruv for the second? Therefore these are two sanctities. They answered him, do you not agree with us that a person does not make a new eruv on a holiday? Therefore it is one sanctity.”

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

If he made a grain heap and worshipped it, then smoothed it, and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.]

If he made a grain heap and worshipped it, then smoothed it, and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.]

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

HALAKHAH: From where that one may feed him fig cake and raisins of heave? From this: They gave him a slice of fig cake and two raisins. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the twenty-four esronot which David ate, he ate in hunger. This happened to Rebbi Joḥanan and he ate everything which happened to be before him. They quoted about him, wisdom revives its possessor. It was stated: “One feeds him the least forbidden. Carcass meat or heave, one feeds him heave. Ṭevel and sabbatical produce, one feeds him Šabbatical produce.” Ḥallah and ˋorlah is problematic. Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Rebbi Ba: Heave is a deadly sin, carcass meat a prohibition, and you are saying so? Following him who said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are the periods of birth. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That animals be available for the pilgrims on the holidays. Rebbi Yudan said, that he should not come to do not tarry. Rebbi Yose said, anybody who is late with his ṭevel transgresses. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. Could Ben Azzai decide between his students? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “you come to find us disagreement”?

It was stated: Rebbi says, four cubits even though there are not four walls. Rebbi Simeon says, four walls even though there are not four cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says, four walls and four cubits. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah requires it to have a mezuzah[even though it has neither four cubits nor four walls.] It is reasonable that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with these rabbis, but these rabbis will not agree with Rebbi Jehudah, for even if it has four cubits and four walls it is not required to have a mezuzah and it does not create ṭevel for tithes.

It was stated: If an amphora of ṭevel became defective one brings another vessel and puts it under it. If it is filled, it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. But did we not state, from the vat of grapes, from the load of olives [which drew fluid] one may not take on the holiday, and is it not necessary to say on the Sabbath? Rav Ḥisda said, even though both of them are tevel, this is muqṣeh and that is not muqṣeh. The following implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. [It was stated.] If a light burned out, one saves its oil. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, if it burned out it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, he mentioned only “to move it,” therefore one is permitted to save it.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of 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, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. 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 can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First 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 Hoshaia, 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 cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (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 Meïr 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 both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of 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, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. 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 can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First 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 Hoshaia, 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 cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (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 Meïr 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 both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of 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, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. 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 can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First 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 Hoshaia, 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 cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (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 Meïr 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 both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: “Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico, a covered walkway, and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet, or a mezuzah, or an erub. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door, and it is not counted as a connection to the town, and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it, and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year, and it cannot become impure by disease, and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

May one who made a vow not to have anything cooked be permitted smoked? May he be permitted fried? May he be permitted anything cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Is anything smoked forbidden because of Gentile cooking? Is it forbidden because of cooking on the Sabbath? Is it forbidden because of meat and milk? Does it cause ṭevel for tithes? If somebody made a vow not to have anything smoked, is he permitted cooked? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of the House of Rav Assi: Ḥabiṣ is unproblematic as Gentile cooking and is acceptable as eruv tavšīlīn. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Anything which can be eaten raw is unproblematic as Gentile cooking and is acceptable as eruv tavšīlīn.

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared 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, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as 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. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared 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, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as 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. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.