exempt

Two women who had never before given birth gave birth to two males: he [the father] gives ten selas to the priest. If one of the children dies within thirty days [of its birth], if he gave the redemption money to one priest alone, he returns five selas to him, but if he gave it to two priests, he cannot reclaim the money from them. If they gave birth to a male and a female or to two males and a female, he gives five selas to the priest. If they gave birth to two females and a male, or to two males and two females, the priest receives nothing. If one woman had given birth before and the other had never given birth, and they gave birth to two males, he gives five selas to the priest. If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], the father is exempt. If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.

If two women who had never before given birth married two men and gave birth to two males, the one father gives five selas to the priest and the other gives five selas to the priest. If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], if they gave the redemption money to one priest alone, he returns five selas to them, but if they gave the money to two priests, they are not able to recover it from them. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the fathers are exempt, whereas the son must redeem himself [as in any case he is a first-born]. If they gave birth to two females and a male or to two females and two males, the priest receives nothing.

An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

All those born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul combine [for matters of tithing]. Five lambs born before Rosh Hashanah and five born after Rosh Hashanah do not combine. But five lambs born before the period [of tithing] and five after the period [of tithing] do combine [for tithing]. If so, why did they speak of three periods for the tithe of cattle? Until the arrival of the [tithing] period it is permitted to sell and slaughter [the animals], but when the period has arrived he must not kill, but if he killed, he is exempt.

How does one tithe animals? He brings them to a shed and makes for them a small opening so that two cannot go out at the same time. And he counts them with a rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And the one that comes out tenth he marks with red chalk and he says: “Behold, this is [the tithe].” If he did not mark it, or if he did not count them with a rod, or if he counted them while they were crouching or standing, they are still considered tithed. If he had one hundred [lambs] and he took ten or if he had ten and he took one [without counting], this is not [a valid] tithe. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: this is a [valid] tithe. If one [of the lambs] already counted jumped back into the flock [in the shed] they are all exempt. If one of the lambs that was a tithe jumped back into the flock [in the shed], they all go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice, and the owners may eat them in their unfit state.

In the case of all forbidden relations, if one partner was an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt; If one is awake and the other asleep, the one asleep is exempt; If one is an inadvertent and the other intentional, the former is liable to a hatat, the latter to karet.

In the case of all forbidden relations, if one partner was an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt; If one is awake and the other asleep, the one asleep is exempt; If one is an inadvertent and the other intentional, the former is liable to a hatat, the latter to karet.

If they said to him: you ate forbidden fat, he is liable to a hatat; If one witness says: he ate, and another says: he did not eat, or if one woman says, he ate, and another says, he did not eat, he is liable to an asham talui. If one witness says, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat, he is exempt. If two [witnesses] say, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat: Rabbi Meir says he is liable. Rabbi Meir said: if two witnesses are capable of bringing upon him severe penalty of death, can they not impose the less severe punishment of a sacrifice? They replied: suppose he said, I did it intentionally, would he not be exempted?

Within what time must he eat them [for him to be liable]? [The time he would need] if he ate a similar amount of parched grains of corn, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the rabbis say: he must take from the beginning to the end [of his eating] no more time than is required for the eating of a peras (a half a loaf of bread) [to be liable]. If one eats unclean food or drinks unclean drinks, or if he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine and then enters the Temple [he is liable if it takes less time] than it takes to eat a peras. Rabbi Eliezer says: if the drinking was interrupted or if he diluted it, he is exempt.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

Rabbi Akiva declares one liable to an asham talui for sacrilege; But the sages declare him exempt. Rabbi Akiba admits that he does not bring his restitution money until he becomes aware [of his trespass], when he must bring with it a certain asham. Rabbi Tarfon: Why should he bring two ashams? Rather, let him set aside the principal with an added fifth, and bring an asham the value of two sela's and stipulate: “If I did commit sacrilege, here is my restitution and this my asham; and if the sacrilege was doubtful, let the money be a freewill gift and the [offering an] asham talui;” since the same type of sacrifice he brings for a case where he doesn’t know, he brings for one where he does know.

[If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege. Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.

There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person: A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.

There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person: A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.

If it broke out covering all of his skin all at once: If this originated in a condition of cleanness, he is unclean; But if it originated in a condition of uncleanness, he is clean. One who becomes clean after having been isolated is exempt from the uncovering his head and rending his clothes, from shaving his hair and from bringing the birds. If he becomes clean after he had been certified unclean, he is liable to all these. Both convey uncleanness by entering.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

If [blood] is found on his rag they are both unclean and they are liable to bring a sacrifice. If any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse, they are both unclean and must bring a sacrifice. If [blood] is found on her rag after a time, they are unclean due to doubt but they are exempt from a sacrifice.

A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse and if a yavam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby. One can be liable for adultery with her; And she defiles the one who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. If she was married to a priest, she may eat terumah. If any of the disqualified men have relations with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood. If any of the forbidden relatives found in the Torah had relations with her he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the penalty]. If she was younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.

If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment.

If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense.

If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton. They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice. If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense.

If one found produce on the road: If the majority [of the inhabitants] gathered produce into their homes, he is exempt [from tithes]; If [the majority gathered it] for selling in the market, he is liable [for tithes]; If they were half and half, the produce is demai. A granary into which both Israelites and non-Jews put their produce, If the majority were non-Jews, [the produce must be considered] certainly untithed; If the majority were Israelites, [it must be considered] demai; If they were half and half, [it must be considered] certainly untithed, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: even if they were all non-Jews, and only one Israelite put his produce into the granary, [it must be considered] demai.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav. If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of "one issue as copious" unless there was sufficient to make up three.

The heart of a palm is like wood in every respect, except that it may be bought for [second] tithe money. Unripened dates are considered food, but are exempt from tithes.

A bee-hive: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is treated as if it were land; and one can write a prozbul on it security, it is also not susceptible to uncleanness as long as it remains in its own place, and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering. But the sages say: it is not to be treated as if it were land, and one many not write a prozbul on its security; it is susceptible even if it remains in its own place; and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt [from a sin-offering].

MISHNAH: When they buried the deceased and returned, if they are able to start and finish before they form the row they should start, otherwise they should not start. Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged.

It is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:11): “Rebbi Judah says, if they all are standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obliged.” It would be that what we stated: “Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged” is the last teaching, and what is stated: “Those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt”, is the first teaching. And what we have stated there (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2): “When he consoles others, all the people stand one behind the other and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people”, the last teaching. (Another opinion: the first.) Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta decreed that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Tosephta said: Matters returned to their original state.

It is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:11): “Rebbi Judah says, if they all are standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obliged.” It would be that what we stated: “Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged” is the last teaching, and what is stated: “Those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt”, is the first teaching. And what we have stated there (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2): “When he consoles others, all the people stand one behind the other and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people”, the last teaching. (Another opinion: the first.) Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta decreed that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Tosephta said: Matters returned to their original state.

It is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:11): “Rebbi Judah says, if they all are standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obliged.” It would be that what we stated: “Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged” is the last teaching, and what is stated: “Those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt”, is the first teaching. And what we have stated there (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2): “When he consoles others, all the people stand one behind the other and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people”, the last teaching. (Another opinion: the first.) Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta decreed that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Tosephta said: Matters returned to their original state.

It is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:11): “Rebbi Judah says, if they all are standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obliged.” It would be that what we stated: “Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged” is the last teaching, and what is stated: “Those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt”, is the first teaching. And what we have stated there (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2): “When he consoles others, all the people stand one behind the other and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people”, the last teaching. (Another opinion: the first.) Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta decreed that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Tosephta said: Matters returned to their original state.

MISHNAH: Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema‘ and from phylacteries but are obliged for prayer, mezuzah, and Grace for food.

There (Mishnah Qiddushin 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta Qiddushin 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, lulab, shofar, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

There (Mishnah Qiddushin 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta Qiddushin 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, lulab, shofar, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

Rebbi Phineas asked: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated, so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land.

Rebbi Phineas asked: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated, so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land.

MISHNAH: If he switches with the poor, what he receives is exempt but what the poor get is obligated. If two persons received a field as sharecroppers, one gives his part and his tithes of the poor to the other one, and vice-versa. He who receives a field to harvest is barred from its gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this so? When he received it for one-half, one third, or one quarter; but if he told him, one third of what you will harvest will be yours, he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah but not the tithes of the poor.

HALAKHAH: There we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs from Temple trees. The Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself. Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple it is exempt from orlah, from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.”

“ Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: It this not from the fruits that are exempt at Caesarea? He said to him, did not Rebbi permit fruits at Caesarea? But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel preceded Rebbi!

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

If one walks from Acco to Akhzib, to one’s right hand side and the East the road is pure regarding the land of Gentiles and is subject to tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be exempt. To one’s left and the West, the road is impure regarding the land of Gentiles and is free from tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be obligated, until one arrives at Akhzib; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, as far as Lablab. What is the status of Acco itself? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Immi: From two actions of Rebbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rebbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread; he asked them, how did you wash [the grains]? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water is in order. They thought, we will cook eggs and wash with the cooking water [because] they thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of egg fluid. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not render decisions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions are no instructions.

When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? Rebbi Simeon said, if the decision stands for forty days. Rebbi Jeremiah said, did we not hold it by error? Certainly it is immediately impure because of territory of the Gentiles! Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Is it not forbidden to go to Tyre and is the one who buys there not obligated? They voted to exempt it from tithes that you should not say the same in this case.

New paragraph 2. “Fenugreek so that a new plant grows.” So is the Mishnah: So that it would grow if sown. How can one check? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He takes a handful and puts it into a pot full of water. If the greater part of it will sink down, it is obligated; otherwise it is exempt. Rebbi Jonah asked: In this case, should not that which sank down be obligated, what did not sink down be exempted? But it must have been said about the greater part of each single ear. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun confirmed: It has been said about the greater part of each single ear.

“ 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.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards, one in Magdala and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation, but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. Rebbi Eliezer’s statement is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.

MISHNAH: Which courtyard is obligated for tithes? Rebbi Ismael says, a Tyrian courtyard in which vessels are guarded. Rebbi Aqiba says, one where one person opens and another one locks it, is free. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, [a courtyard] where one is not ashamed to eat is obligated. Rebbi Yose says, one into which anybody may enter and nobody asks, what are you doing here, is free. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one courtyard is inside another, the inner one is obligated, the outer one is free. Roofs are exempt even if they are in an obligated courtyard. A porter’s lodge, a covered walkway, and a gallery are like the courtyard: obligated if the latter is obligated and free if the latter is free. Sheds, watchtowers, and summer shelters are free. Genezareth huts even though they contain a hand mill or chickens are free. Potter’s huts, the inner one is obligated, the outer one free. Rebbi Yose says, any which is not a dwelling in summer and winter is free. A holiday hut on the holiday Rebbi Jehudah obligates but the Sages free.

Rebbi Abin said, only if the roof is at least four [cubits] square. Just as a house does not induce ṭevel unless it is at least four [cubits] square, so the roof does not exempt unless it is at least four [cubits] square, as it is stated: A house less than four [cubits] square is free from the obligations of mezuzah and the parapet, from the obligation of eruv, does not induce ṭevel, is not counted as a connection to a town; he who makes a vow not to be in a house may sit there; one does not give it four cubits before its entrance door; it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee; it cannot become impure by scale disease, and its owner does not return from the army because of it.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

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.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times they sent to the rural farmers, speed up your produce before the time of removal, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that any produce which did not reach the time of tithing is exempt from removal. If somebody’s produce was far from him, he has to give it a name. It happened that Rabban Gamliel was on a ship with the elders when Rabban Gamliel said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Joshua and its place is rented to him; another tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Aqiba; he should distribute it to the poor, and its place is rented to him. Rebbi Joshua said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Eleazar ben Azariah and its place is rented to him. They paid the rent to each other.

MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, as well as abandoned property, First tithe of which its heave had been taken, second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed, the excess of the ‘omer, and grain not yet one-third ripe. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah. The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes, and less than five quarter [qab] of grain. Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah.

MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, as well as abandoned property, First tithe of which its heave had been taken, second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed, the excess of the ‘omer, and grain not yet one-third ripe. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah. The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes, and less than five quarter [qab] of grain. Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.” He came back and said, from 14 [years]. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.” He came back and said, from 14 [years]. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.” He came back and said, from 14 [years]. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

“Less than five quarter [qab] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [qab] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, dema‘ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible dema‘ and is eaten because of dema‘. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [qab], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

Rav said, dough for kutaḥ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Abun said, perhaps she will change her mind to make it white Zwieback. Rebbi Mana said, we have to announce publicly that those who make ‘abiṣin should make less than the measure since they think it is exempt but it is obligated.

Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea and he said to me, two students stated this.

“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.

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.

How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the reason of Rebbi Aqiba, (Num. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you?” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer: Do you not agree that when Israel entered the Land and found there coarse and fine flour that this was subject to ḥallah? Did it not grow while exempt? He accepted that. Rebbi Yose said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer and how could the latter accept it? There, before they entered they had inherited it retroactively, as Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: It is not written “to your posterity I shall give” but (Gen. 15:18): “to your posterity I gave”, I already gave it.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, (Num. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread?” About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by what Rebbi Aqiba objected to Rebbi Eliezer and the latter accepted it.

They wanted to say, according to him who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated. It is written (2K. 14:25): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land.

They wanted to say, according to him who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated. It is written (2K. 14:25): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land.

They wanted to say, according to him who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated. It is written (2K. 14:25): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land.

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.

MISHNAH: If the dough became dema‘ before it was rolled it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah. 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.

MISHNAH: If the dough became dema‘ before it was rolled it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah. 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.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.

Rebbi Jehudah stated: “If the inventory belongs to a Jew but Gentile workers make it, it is subject to ḥallah. If the inventory belongs to a Gentile and Jewish workers make it, it is not subject to ḥallah.” Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated this: “A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah.”

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

“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.

“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.