everybody

The rabbis of Caesarea say, Gentile minors and the armies of Nebucadnezzar will not live and will not be judged; about them it says (Jer. 51:39,57): “They will sleep an eternal sleep and never wake up.” From when do Jewish minors live? The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said from when they are born, the other said from when they talk. He who says from when they are born (Ps. 22:32): “they shall come and tell His justice to the born people He made.” He who says from when they talk (Ps. 22:31): “Seed will worship Him, it will by told to the Master by the generation.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: From the time [the child] knows to answer Amen in the synagogue. What is the reason? (Is. 26:2) “Open the gates, let the just people come who keep trust.” There they say, from when they are circumcised (Ps. 88:16): “I carried your fear, I cease” But the rabbis from here say, from when they are born (Ps. 87:5): “He will say to Zion, everybody [who] was born [is] in it.” Rebbi Eleazar says, even the still-born, what is the reason? (Is. 49:6) “The watched ones of Israel to return”, the created ones of Israel to return.

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Rebbi Yose said, they disagree for general usage, but for drinking even Rebbi Yose would agree. Who is the Tanna of “but one may give to drink to the water drawer”? Rebbi Yose! Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody; one statement refers to humans, the other to animals.

MISHNAH: Rue, wild amaranth, purslain, mountain coriander, river celery, and wild rocket are free from tithes and can be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical since no similar plants are guarded. Rebbi Jehudah says, spontaneous growth of mustard is permitted because the unobservant are not suspected in this respect. Rebbi Simeon says, all spontaneous growth is permitted except that of cabbage since nothing similar grows wild on the fields. But the Sages say, all spontaneous growth is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If somebody had Sabbatical produce when the time of removal came, he distributes food for three meals to everybody. The poor may eat after removal but not rich persons, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, both poor and rich persons may eat after removal. If somebody had Sabbatical produce which fell to him as inheritance or was given to him as a gift, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be given to those who eat it. But the Sages say, a sinner should not be rewarded, but it should be sold to those who eat it and the payment distributed to anybody. He who eats from Sabbatical dough of which ḥallah was not taken commits a deadly sin.

Where do we hold? If it is connected to the ground, everybody agrees that it belongs to the ground. If it is on two bars, everybody agrees that it is not like ground. But where we hold is if it rests on the ground. It compares to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: One writes a prozbol on the space for an oven, also on the space for a hearth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, also on the space for a lamp.

Where do we hold? If it is connected to the ground, everybody agrees that it belongs to the ground. If it is on two bars, everybody agrees that it is not like ground. But where we hold is if it rests on the ground. It compares to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: One writes a prozbol on the space for an oven, also on the space for a hearth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, also on the space for a lamp.

MISHNAH: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him. Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word.

Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rebbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is that (Deut. 24:1,3): “he writes for her”, for her personally? Rebbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and ownerless property all have the same rule. Did one not already state everything? Thus you have to understand the Mishnah: [One may] not [give] from produce one third ripe for produce not yet one third ripe, and when he gave heave, it is not heave. For Ḥizqiah it is a point of contention, for Rebbi Joḥanan it is everybody’s opinion.

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and he says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only if he intended to dedicate but he erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

“If he pressed it but it is not known where he pressed it, everybody agrees that it may be lifted.” Rebbi Abin said, but each individual [amphora] must contain somewhat more than two pounds so it should have disappeared in a plurality.

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of a living animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three derivations which are clear from the Torah (Deut. 26:3): “You shall come to the Cohen who will be in those days.” Is there a Cohen now who is not a Cohen after some time? Who is that? That is one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of one who had performed ḥaliẓah, that his work is valid. Rav said, (Deut. 33:11) “You will want the work of his hands,” that the work of everybody who is of the descendants of Levi is valid.

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

“Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it spoiled and improved or improved and spoiled, it is a disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

“Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it spoiled and improved or improved and spoiled, it is a disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

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

“ Nehorai bar Shania said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Small apples are exempt, large apples are obligated. Honey apples are obligated large or small.” What is the status of the Mishnah? One may say small ones are in dispute, one may say honey apples in agreement with everybody.

How far? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Unless he would burn his hand if he put it in. Everybody agrees that a second vessel is permitted. What is the difference between first and second vessels? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, here the hand holds, there the hand does not hold. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases the hand does not hold but they decreed removal for a first but not a second vessel. Rebbi Mana said, that platter of rice supports my father, that platter of grits supports my father since you remove it from place to place and it is still boiling.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, this is Rebbi Meїr’s opinion since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody. This was asked of those from Rebbi Yannai’s house and they said, we used to give to one another in the fields and ate without putting in order. How can this be? Following him who held that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

If he gave much, even if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If he gave him anything that usually is not eaten raw, even if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If [the recipient] was an important personality who does not usually eat in public, if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If there were two people; to one he said, take and eat; to the other he said, take and store. The one to whom he said, take and eat, is free; the one to whom he said, take and store, is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah (2:2): “They eat and are free but the owners of the gate or the store are obligated?” Rebbi Jonah said, it is everybody’s opinion; here for demay, there for certain.

Everybody agrees that staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. What is the difference between staying overnight and staying during the Sabbath? A person happens to stay overnight, nobody happens to stay during the Sabbath. A person will stay anywhere overnight, nobody stays everywhere during the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If about a harvesting-basket of figs, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If about oil olives and wine grapes, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing, dried figs intended for pressing. Rebbi Eliezer says, heave creates ṭevel of fruits not completely processed but the Sages say, heave does not create ṭevel of fruits not completely processed.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If about a harvesting-basket of figs, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If about oil olives and wine grapes, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing, dried figs intended for pressing. Rebbi Eliezer says, heave creates ṭevel of fruits not completely processed but the Sages say, heave does not create ṭevel of fruits not completely processed.

Can First Tithe induce ṭevel? Where do we hold? If about a grain heap that was smoothed, everybody holds that it is forbidden. If First Tithe was given from ears, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing, large figs intended for pounding, of which he gave the Great Heave and then changed his mind to store them as they were. Then he transgressed and gave First Tithe. If you say that ṭevel was created retroactively, the heave induces ṭevel. If you say that ṭevel is created from there onwards, the First Tithe induces ṭevel.

Can First Tithe induce ṭevel? Where do we hold? If about a grain heap that was smoothed, everybody holds that it is forbidden. If First Tithe was given from ears, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing, large figs intended for pounding, of which he gave the Great Heave and then changed his mind to store them as they were. Then he transgressed and gave First Tithe. If you say that ṭevel was created retroactively, the heave induces ṭevel. If you say that ṭevel is created from there onwards, the First Tithe induces ṭevel.

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

It is written (Deut. 23:26): “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain,” he who has permission to swing a sickle, that means the laborer. Issy ben Aqabiah says, the verse speaks about everybody. Why does the verse say, “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain?” He has no right except at the time of swinging the sickle. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, how far was the Torah careful about robbery that it judged between a human and his neighbor about a swing of the sickle! How great is labor, since the generation of the Flood was destroyed only because of robbery, but the laborer does his work, eats, and is free of any robbery!

It is written (Deut. 23:26): “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain,” he who has permission to swing a sickle, that means the laborer. Issy ben Aqabiah says, the verse speaks about everybody. Why does the verse say, “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain?” He has no right except at the time of swinging the sickle. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, how far was the Torah careful about robbery that it judged between a human and his neighbor about a swing of the sickle! How great is labor, since the generation of the Flood was destroyed only because of robbery, but the laborer does his work, eats, and is free of any robbery!

It is written (Deut. 23:25): “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says: “Do not put into your own vessel,” but you may put into somebody else’s vessel. Who is this? This is the laborer. “You may eat grapes.” Do we not know that in a vineyard there is nothing to eat but grapes? Why does the verse say, you may eat grapes? From here [it follows] that if he works fig trees he cannot eat grapes, vines he cannot eat figs. “All your soul’s desire,” all that your inclination may be. “All your soul’s desire,” anything that is free from tithes. What you eat without obligation also the laborer may eat without obligation. “All your soul’s desire,” from here that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages. From here did Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma deduce that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages, but the Sages permit it. From where that his wages are called his soul? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it says here “his soul” and it says at another place “his soul” as it is written (Deut. 24:15): “For that he carries his soul.” Just as “his soul” there means his wages, so here “his soul” means his wages. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not eat and vomit. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not peel figs or suck out grapes.

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives, everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives, everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

If he cooked it while it was property of the Temple, redeemed it, and brought it into a secure courtyard, what is its status? In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it became ṭevel; this is biblical, that is not biblical. If he brought it into a secure courtyard, redeemed and then cooked it, everybody agrees that it became ṭevel, what did he process while it was property of the Temple? If he dedicated it, cooked it, brought it into a secure courtyard, redeemed it, and cooked it again, everybody agrees that it became ṭevel. If he redeemed it and put it out to dry, what is its status? If you say that fire creates ṭevel, fire frees from ṭevel; if you say that fire does not create ṭevel, fire does not free from ṭevel.

If he cooked it while it was property of the Temple, redeemed it, and brought it into a secure courtyard, what is its status? In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it became ṭevel; this is biblical, that is not biblical. If he brought it into a secure courtyard, redeemed and then cooked it, everybody agrees that it became ṭevel, what did he process while it was property of the Temple? If he dedicated it, cooked it, brought it into a secure courtyard, redeemed it, and cooked it again, everybody agrees that it became ṭevel. If he redeemed it and put it out to dry, what is its status? If you say that fire creates ṭevel, fire frees from ṭevel; if you say that fire does not create ṭevel, fire does not free from ṭevel.

Where do we hold? If there are two vats, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If there is only one vat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Where do we hold? If he has a pure vat and his friend an impure one. Rebbi Eliezer says, a person may return to his friend’s vat but the rabbis say, a person does not return to his friend’s vat.

Where do we hold? If there are two vats, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If there is only one vat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Where do we hold? If he has a pure vat and his friend an impure one. Rebbi Eliezer says, a person may return to his friend’s vat but the rabbis say, a person does not return to his friend’s vat.

Where do they disagree? When he sowed it for its seeds. But if he sowed it as vegetable, even the rabbis agree. It was stated so: “In Bethany they used to permit its vegetable, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” He said only “the words of Rebbi Eliezer;” therefore, everybody else says it is obligated.

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

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.

MISHNAH: A person should not sell his produce after it reached the period of tithing to anybody not trustworthy in matters of tithe, or in the Sabbatical year to anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical. If some were ripened early he takes the early ripe fruit and sells the remainder. A person should not sell his chaff or his oil cakes or his grape husks to somebody not trustworthy in matters of tithe if the latter wants to extract fluids from it. If he extracted, he is obligated for tithes but free from heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff. If somebody bought a vegetable field in Syria before it reached the time of tithes he is obligated, after it reached the time of tithes he is free and he can harvest continuously. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may even hire workers and harvest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, where has this been said? When he bought the field. But if he did not buy the field he is free even after it reached the time of tithes. Rebbi said, all according to computation.

Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: If he gave heave one in sixty, which is one in sixty-one including broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff? Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.” Is that not needed only for the excess?

MISHNAH: He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated. If he found more than his measure he gives proportionally from another place. The holes of ants which were near an obligated heap overnight are obligated since it is obvious that they were dragging from what was processed all night. Baalbek garlic, Rikhpa onion, Cilician grits, and Egyptian lentils, Rebbi Meïr says also colocasia, Rebbi Yose says also qrṭnym are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. The seed of the upper part of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of onions, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical and these may be eaten if their father was heave.

MISHNAH: He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated. If he found more than his measure he gives proportionally from another place. The holes of ants which were near an obligated heap overnight are obligated since it is obvious that they were dragging from what was processed all night. Baalbek garlic, Rikhpa onion, Cilician grits, and Egyptian lentils, Rebbi Meïr says also colocasia, Rebbi Yose says also qrṭnym are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. The seed of the upper part of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of onions, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical and these may be eaten if their father was heave.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. There, we have stated: “After-wine before it fermented cannot be bought with money of [Second] Tithe or make a miqweh invalid; after it fermented it may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe and does not make a miqweh invalid.” That Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s since we stated: “He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe.

What does he give? Tithes! That means, not heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.

Menaḥem ben Maximus the brother of Jonathan Caiphas in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Flax may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. That is, if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Zeugos, the relative of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Vetch may be bought from anybody during the Sabbatical. Rebbi Yose said: Does our Mishnah say so? “The upper seed of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of egg plants, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten.” We have stated on this: Seeds of indigo, seeds of madder, and seeds of vetch. That implies, not vetch itself. Maybe if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.

“But they may give free gifts to one another.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Yose said, here it is everybody’s opinion, following what was stated: A person says to his neighbor [in Jerusalem]: What did you eat today? If that one says summer figs, he knows that it was firstling. Just as summer figs are sold cheaply, so firstlings are sold cheaply. If that one said manna, he knows that it was Second Tithe. Just as manna was given as a gift, so Second Tithe may be given as a gift. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe cannot be sold; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift. Rebbi Mana did not say so but was following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah said He made it one’s property. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe is not one’s property; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift.

“But they may give free gifts to one another.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Yose said, here it is everybody’s opinion, following what was stated: A person says to his neighbor [in Jerusalem]: What did you eat today? If that one says summer figs, he knows that it was firstling. Just as summer figs are sold cheaply, so firstlings are sold cheaply. If that one said manna, he knows that it was Second Tithe. Just as manna was given as a gift, so Second Tithe may be given as a gift. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe cannot be sold; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift. Rebbi Mana did not say so but was following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah said He made it one’s property. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe is not one’s property; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift.

“But they may give free gifts to one another.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Yose said, here it is everybody’s opinion, following what was stated: A person says to his neighbor [in Jerusalem]: What did you eat today? If that one says summer figs, he knows that it was firstling. Just as summer figs are sold cheaply, so firstlings are sold cheaply. If that one said manna, he knows that it was Second Tithe. Just as manna was given as a gift, so Second Tithe may be given as a gift. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe cannot be sold; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift. Rebbi Mana did not say so but was following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah said He made it one’s property. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe is not one’s property; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift.

“For a blank”. Everybody agrees that one does not exchange for the coins given to the olearius. That is, the way they are used for the olearius. But the way they are used by the tremissarius one may exchange.

“Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money and invalidates a miqweh; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money and does not invalidate a miqweh.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah as we have stated there: “If someone makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with tithe money.

Rebbi Zevida was sitting and teaching his son: “if somebody wants to exchange [tithe] money for produce today, both these and those are consecrated, the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, the money is as it was and the produce is as it was.” Rebbi Crispus passed by and told him, do not state it so but say “produce for money.” Therefore, everybody agrees that money for produce was not consecrated. But did we not state: “if there is no Temple they should be left to rot”? Explain it if he dedicated it when there was a Temple and the Temple was destroyed.

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” What are we talking about? If about him who says, here you have it, give me [payment], everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he says, give me and I shall give you, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But it is about one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me [where to find it], I shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” What are we talking about? If about him who says, here you have it, give me [payment], everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he says, give me and I shall give you, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But it is about one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me [where to find it], I shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant.

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

It was stated: One does not redeem Second Tithe as Second Tithe but as profane. Rebbi Saul asked: Think of it, if everybody knew that it was Second? Even so. It was stated: One redeems Second Tithe only from its own kind. Otherwise, what would we say? One might redeem wheat for barley, barley for wheat; even fine wheat for coarse wheat, coarse wheat for fine wheat.

“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”.

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

Were these exchanged? We have stated there: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs. Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rebbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was watering an olive tree with oil. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he made love to his mother. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that my eye kissed its companion. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he made love to his sister. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I had three eyes. He said to him, you are an oven maker; your two eyes and the opening of the oven. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I had four ears. He said to him, you are filling [amphoras]; your two ears and the two ears of the amphora. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that people got out of my way. He said to him, you are carrying thorns and everybody gets out of your way. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a wooden notebinder with twelve tablets. He said to him, the stone bench of this person has twelve tatters. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I swallowed a star. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he killed a Jew as it is written (Num. 24:17): “A star went out from Jacob.” A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream the vineyard of this man grow bitter lettuce. He said to him, all your wine will be sour and you will bring bitter lettuce and dip it in the cups.

Everybody agrees that bread and oil have to be removed, wine and spices are as if removed. Where do they disagree: A cooked dish the House of Shammai says one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say one does not have to remove.

There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Following him who holds that it is not like his property; but following him who holds it is like his property he must be obligated. He said to him, I also am of this opinion. For second tithe, since everybody agrees that it is like his property, he is obligated, there is a disagreement. For him who holds it is obligated, even its heave is obligated. For him who holds it is free, even its profane part is free.

: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota says in the name of Rebbi Joshua, he made everything unusable. But Rebbi Aqiba says in the latter’s name, he made unusable only the place where he touched.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when do they disagree? When it was prepared for impurity and after that was kneaded, when fruit juices clearly do prepare. But if it was kneaded and after that only prepared, fruit juices are not clear to prepare. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is everybody’s opinion. Even though Rebbi Aqiba says there that fruit juices have no clear connection with impurity, he agrees here that fruit juices are clearly for ḥallah.

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

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.

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.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said the additional growth is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it either for Rebbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

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!

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

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

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.

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

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

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the nazir why a fruit? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! The word of Rebbi Isaac implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Isaac asked: Who stated “one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah”? Rebbi Yose!

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the nazir why a fruit? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! The word of Rebbi Isaac implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Isaac asked: Who stated “one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah”? Rebbi Yose!

“ Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

“ Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

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

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

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

Rebbi Zeriqan asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is the Mishnah Rebbi’s since Rebbi said, all roots live off one another? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. Here, the Torah said (Deut. 26:2): “the beginning of the First Fruits of your land,” that all growth be from your land.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into a private person’s and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a private road is in between? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha, when he provined through a gourd or a pipe. If he provined through a gourd or a pipe he should bring and make the declaration! Even according to the rabbis he should bring and make the declaration! Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah had a problem. If somebody sells a path to another person, does he sell him the place where the foot treads or does he sell him down to the abyss? If you say, he sold the place where the foot treads, he brings and makes the declaration. If you say, he sold down to the abyss, he should not bring at all. Because of the doubt he brings but does not make the declaration. For the rabbis it is obvious that he sold down to the abyss. Where do they differ? When he sells a path to another person. But if he sold him a field and reserved a path for himself, everybody agrees that he reserved for himself down to the abyss.

HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah who compares them to country sacred food he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.

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