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.

“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.

“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.

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

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

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree.”

Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.

Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor. But he says from the following: “If someone keeps cabbage for seeds, his opinion is inoperative; for single stalks it is not inoperative.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes?

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘orlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

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 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 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.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:21) “When you plant,” this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If it could survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeïra: You say two things which contradict each other. Here you say, because growth of anything forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden; there you say one whips for the size of an olive. Should he not be whipped only in the proportion it contains? Rebbi Jonah said, in the first case it lives because of itself, in the second because of the attachment. Then if a citrus medica, which blossomed in an ‘orlah year and grew in an exempt year, is attached reciprocally to a tree of the same kind they will cleanse one another.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Nanas says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds. Rebbi Aqiba says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds. Rebbi Simeon says, there are three components of First Fruits. First Fruits, additions to First Fruits, and adornments of First Fruits. Additions to First Fruits are of the same kind, adornments of First Fruits are not of the same kind. Additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and exempt from the rules of demay, adornments of First Fruits are subject to the rules of demay.

[Rebbi] Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira 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 Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category 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? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself? Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings 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? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries, and from ˋoriah, and from the Fourth Year, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.

MISHNAH: If part of them slept, they may eat; if all of them, they may not eat Rebbi Yose says, if they were sleepy, they may eat, if they slept they may not eat. The Pesaḥ after midnight makes hands impure. Piggul and leftover make the hands impure. If he recited the benediction for the Pesaḥ it exempted that of the family sacrifice; the one for the family sacrifice does not exempt the one for the Pesaḥ, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba said, neither one exempts the other.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, should not making the benediction for Pesaḥ not exempt the sacrifice, but for the sacrifice exempt the Pesaḥ, since the Pesaḥ is included in the notion of sacrifice? Rebbi Mana said, the Pesaḥ is the main item, the {family} sacrifice a minor part.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, should not making the benediction for Pesaḥ not exempt the sacrifice, but for the sacrifice exempt the Pesaḥ, since the Pesaḥ is included in the notion of sacrifice? Rebbi Mana said, the Pesaḥ is the main item, the {family} sacrifice a minor part.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Where does one appear? On the Temple Mount or in the Temple courtyards? He told him, let us hear from the following: “The impure is exempt from appearance, for it is written, you shall come there and bring there.” And one impure in the impurity of the dead may not enter the Temple Mount. This implies that appearance is in the Temple courtyards.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes, etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes, etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes, etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel.

The Torah said: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

MISHNAH: When the mixed-up children became adults and manumitted one another they may marry women appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile themselves for the dead, but if they became defiled they do not suffer forty lashes. They may not eat heave, but if they ate they do not have to pay its value and and additional fifth. They cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor; they have to sell their heave, but the money is theirs. They have no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give them sacrifices, but one cannot take theirs from them. They are exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. Their firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges them with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim.

MISHNAH: [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Similarly, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate and they may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate. If one was an Israel and the other a priest, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim. If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them but they inherit from him. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.

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

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing? One is biblical, the other is not biblical.

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing? One is biblical, the other is not biblical.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt that he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The first case teaches about the second and the second about the first. The first case teaches about the second, that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, that he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease all the time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abuna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, in that case we say, they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

Rav Jehudah sent to Rebbi Eleazar: If a keeper give to another keeper. He answered, the first is responsible. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second is responsible. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the second is responsible. There, we have stated: “If somebody leases a cow from another person and lends it to a third party; if it died naturally, the lessee has to swear that it died naturally and the borrower has to pay to the lessee. Rebbi Yose said, how can this person make a deal with another’s cow? But the cow’s [price] has to be restituted to the owner.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. Also Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, nor the trustee give to another unless they received permission from the owners. And all who changed the titles without the owners’ knowledge are liable. But the borrower is liable even if he did not change.” But it is because we stated: “An unpaid watchman can stipulate to be exempt from an oath and the borrower may stipulate that he not have to pay.” This means that even if he stipulated to be exempt he is obligated. What if he wanted to let the borrower swear? Let us hear from the following: “If he wrote to her: ‘I have no vow or oath against you,’ he cannot make her swear, but he can ask an oath from the heirs or her business associates.” This implies that if he wanted to make the borrower swear, he can force him to swear. The second case teaches about the first, that if he wants to force the wife to swear, he can make her swear. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is not necessary to derive the first case from the second, and what does one learn for the second case from the first? Following what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lend to others. And here, only if he gave permission to let her sons be stewards. Rebbi Yose said, he has to pay the lease the entire time it is leased to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Abinna: If the owners borrowed it and it died? He said to him, we hold that they ate it. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act? He said to him, there are two against four; one does not act following the argument. He said to him, they are two against two! Rebbi Eleazar is the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s student; Rebbi Joḥanan is Rebbi Yannai’s student.

“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulab, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the [mother from the] nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rebbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of the rebbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

“A Jew had borrowed money from a Gentile or a Gentile from a Jew when he converted. Whether the loan was finalized before or after his conversion, he can collect the principal but not the interest. But if a Gentile had borrowed money from a Jew and converted, if the loan was finalized before he converted, he can collect principal and interest; after he converted, he can collect principal but not interest. Bar Qappara said, he can collect both principal and interest.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Bar Qappara’s reason is that if you exempt him from interest he is turned into an insincere proselyte.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires workers to work,” etc. Anything which is of a kind apt to be under the rules of tithing but another prohibition caused it [to be forbidden to eat], if one hired [a worker] without mentioning it, he has to redeem and feed, tithe and feed. If [the worker] contracted for it, he eats. But if it is of a kind exempt from the rules of tithing but another prohibition caused it [to be forbidden to eat], if one hired [a worker] without mentioning it, that one cannot eat; if he contracted for it, he eats.

It is stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are all standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obligated, 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 obligated. It would be what we stated: “If he consoles others, the people come in single file and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people,” the first teaching. And what we stated: “the innermost are exempt and the outer ones obligated,” is the first teaching. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta instituted that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Sofefta said: Matters returned to their original state.

It is stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are all standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obligated, 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 obligated. It would be what we stated: “If he consoles others, the people come in single file and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people,” the first teaching. And what we stated: “the innermost are exempt and the outer ones obligated,” is the first teaching. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta instituted that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Sofefta said: Matters returned to their original state.

It is stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are all standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obligated, 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 obligated. It would be what we stated: “If he consoles others, the people come in single file and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people,” the first teaching. And what we stated: “the innermost are exempt and the outer ones obligated,” is the first teaching. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta instituted that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Sofefta said: Matters returned to their original state.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Ze`ura 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 Ze`ura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Ze`ura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category 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? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Ze`ura he is guilty on two counts

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In every situation in which the Sages said that her husband would be obligated for a sacrifice, pure food became impure; her husband would be exempt from a sacrifice, pure food remains pure; her husband would have to bring a sacrifice for a doubt, pure food is in limbo. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: If an old man and a child walk in a dining room, does the old man not enter first? But the child can come and make a fool of him. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yudan: I say, it was here but the intercourse stopped it from leaving; but there, what hindered it to leave? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaiah: “If she left [the bed] and saw blood, she is impure but all the food is pure.” The Mishnah disagrees with Bar Pedaiah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also when they stop eating heave.” Why? Not that if she would bleed, the food should not retroactively become impure? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Explain it for a woman who has no regular period. He said to him, so says my teacher Rebbi Yose: All that is described here is about a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah rises: Up to this point [it speaks] about a woman who has a regular period; from there on about a woman who has no regular period. But even if you say that the Mishnah does not rise, and we deal only with a woman who has a regular period, where does Bar Pedaiah hold? One differs with Rebbi Jehudah.

This is required in accordance with the teaching : " When thou sittest in thy house" excludes one occupied with a religious duty; "and when thou walkest by the way" excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt [from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the night of his marriage] ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

Are we not here dealing with one who is on his way to perform a religious duty, and even so, the All-merciful requires of him the reading [of the Shema']? In that case, the All-merciful should have written "when sitting and when walking." What means "when thou sittest and when thou walkest"? When sitting for thine own purpose and when walking for thine own purpose, thou art under the obligation [to read the Shema'] ; but when it is the performance of a religious duty, thou art exempt.

If so, even one who takes a widow as wife should also [be exempt] !

Should the reason [of exemption] be on account of anxiety, then it ought also to apply to one whose ship has sunk at sea ! Shouldest thou say that he likewise is exempt, why does R. Abba b. Zabda declare in the name of Rab : A mourner is under the obligation to observe all the commandments mentioned in the Torah except Tefillin, because they are called an adornment ; as it is said, "Bind thine adornment upon thee" (Ezek. xxiv. 17)?

Rab washed his hands, read the Shema', put on the Tefillin and then offered his prayers. How could he act thus? For lo, there is a teaching : One who is digging a cavity for a corpse is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema', the Tefillah, Tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ; but when the time of reading the Shema' arrives, he ascends, washes his hands, puts on the Tefillin, reads the Shema' and offers his prayers?

Here is a self-contradiction ! The first clause declares such a man to be exempt from the obligation, and the latter imposes the obligation upon him !

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the first night [of his marriage], and until the termination of the ensuing Sabbath, if he has not consummated the marriage. It happened that when Rabban Gamaliel married, he read the Shema' on the first night. His disciples said to him, "Our teacher ! thou hast taught us that a bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'." He replied, "I will not hearken to you to annul the kingdom of heaven from myself even a single hour."

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the first night [of his marriage], and until the termination of the ensuing Sabbath, if he has not consummated the marriage. It happened that when Rabban Gamaliel married, he read the Shema' on the first night. His disciples said to him, "Our teacher ! thou hast taught us that a bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'." He replied, "I will not hearken to you to annul the kingdom of heaven from myself even a single hour."

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'. Our Rabbis have taught : "When thou sittest in thy house" (Deut. vi. 7) excludes one occupied with a religious duty ; "and when thou walkest by the way" (ibid.) excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'. Our Rabbis have taught : "When thou sittest in thy house" (Deut. vi. 7) excludes one occupied with a religious duty ; "and when thou walkest by the way" (ibid.) excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

In that case, the All-merciful should have written "when walking." What means "when thou walkest"? Deduce from this, [it means] when walking for thine own purpose thou art under the obligation [to read the Shema'] ; but when it is the performance of a religious duty, thou art exempt.

If so, why especially mention, "He who takes a virgin to his house as wife" ? Even one who takes a widow to wife should also [be exempt] !

MISHNAH He whose dead is lying before him [unburied] is exempt from the reading of the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah.

The bearers of the bier and they who relieve them, and they who relieve these latter — such as are before the bier and such as are behind it — they who are before it, whose services will be required, are exempt ; but they who are behind it, whose services may still be required, are under the obligation. But both are exempt from the Tefillah.

The bearers of the bier and they who relieve them, and they who relieve these latter — such as are before the bier and such as are behind it — they who are before it, whose services will be required, are exempt ; but they who are behind it, whose services may still be required, are under the obligation. But both are exempt from the Tefillah.

As for those who stand in the row, the inner line is exempt, the outer line under the obligation. [not translated]

GEMARA When the body is lying before him, he is exempt; [it is consequently to be inferred that] when it is not lying before him, he is not exempt !