grains

As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man. [Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. And he added, saying, Now these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor, says he, not believing, and asking, 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord.' the Lord said, 'They shall see who shall come to them.' These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: 'And the wolf shall lie, down with the lamb,' etc. .]

While he yet spake there came other twelve and saw me and said: Art thou Paul that is glorified in heaven and upon earth? And I answered and said: Who are ye? The first answered and said: I am Esaias whose head Manasses cut with a saw of wood. And the second said likewise: I am Jeremias who was stoned by the children of Israel, and slain. And the third said: I am Ezechiel whom the children of Israel dragged by the feet over the stones in the mountain until they scattered my brains abroad: and all of us endured these labours, desiring to save the children of Israel: and I say unto thee that after the toils which they laid upon me I would cast myself down upon my face before the Lord, praying for them and bowing my knees unto the second hour of the Lord’s day, even until Michael came and raised me up from the earth. Blessed art thou, Paul, and blessed is the people that hath believed through thee. And as they passed by, I saw another, fair of countenance, and asked: Who is this, Lord? [And when he saw me he was glad] and he said unto me: This is Lot, which was found righteous in Sodom. And he came near and greeted me and said: Blessed art thou, Paul, and blessed is the generation unto whom thou hast ministered. And I answered and said unto him: Art thou Lot, that wast found righteous in Sodom? And he said: I entertained angels in mine house as strangers, and when they of the city would have done them violence I offered them my two daughters, virgins, that had never known man, and gave them to them, saying: Use them as ye will, only do no ill unto these men, for therefore have they entered under the roof of mine house. Therefore ought we to have confidence, and know that whatsoever any man hath done, God recompenseth him manifold more when he cometh (they come) unto him. Blessed art thou, Paul, and blessed is the generation which hath believed thy word. When therefore he had ceased speaking unto me, I saw another coming from afar off, very beautiful in the face, and smiling, and his angels singing hymns, and I said unto the angel that was with me: Hath, then, every one of the righteous an angel for his fellow? And he saith to me: Every one of the saints hath his own, that standeth by him and singeth hymns, and the one departeth not from the other. And I said: Who is this, Lord? And he said: This is Job. And he drew near and greeted me and said: Brother Paul, thou hast great praise with God and men. Now I am Job, which suffered much for the season of thirty years by the issue of a plague; and in the beginning the blains that came forth of my body were as grains of wheat; but on the third day they became like an ass’s foot, and the worms that fell from them were four fingers long: and thrice the devil appeared unto me and saith to me: Speak a word against the Lord, and die. But I said unto him: If thus be the will of God that I continue in the plague all the time of my life until I die, I will not rest from blessing the Lord God, and I shall receive the greater reward. For I know that the sufferings of this world are nought compared with the refreshment that is thereafter: wherefore blessed art thou, Paul, and blessed is the people which hath believed by thy means.

As the elders remember, which saw John the Lord's disciple, that they heard from him how the Lord taught concerning those times, and said: The days shall come wherein vines shall grow each having ten thousand branches, and on one branch ten thousand shoots, and on every shoot ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape when it is pressed shall yield five and twenty measures (metrētes) of wine. And when any of the saints taketh hold of one of the clusters, another will cry out: I am a better cluster, take me, through me bless thou the Lord. Likewise also he said that a grain of wheat shall bring forth ten thousand ears, and every ear shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain shall yield five double pounds of white clean flour; and all other fruits and seeds and plants according to the agreement that followeth with them (sc. in the same proportion): and all animals using those foods which are got from the earth shall be peaceable and in concord one with another, subject unto men with all obedience. These things Papias also, a hearer of John, and an associate of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies in writing in the fourth of his books—for he wrote five. And he adds, saying: But these things are credible unto believers. And, he says, when Judas the traitor believed not, and asked: How then shall these growths be accomplished by the Lord? the Lord said: They shall see who shall come thereto.

“The message is like a grain of wheat. When someone sowed it, they believed in it, and when it sprouted, they loved it, because they saw many grains in place of one. And after they worked, they were saved because they prepared it as food, then kept enough left over to be sown. This is also how you yourselves can receive the kingdom of heaven. Unless you receive it through knowledge, you won’t be able to find it.

And mighty God august, not melting grains

If any bishop or presbyter, otherwise than our Lord has ordained concerning the sacrifice, offer other things at the altar of God, as honey, milk, or strong beer instead of wine, any necessaries, or birds, or animals, or pulse, otherwise than is ordained, let him be deprived; excepting grains of new grain, or ears of wheat, or bunches of grapes in their season.

But the king took him by the hand; and, "O young man," says he, "for my servant bears witness that thou art at present the best and most skillful person I can consult with; vouchsafe me the same favors which thou bestowedst on this servant of mine, and tell me what events they are which the visions of my dreams foreshow; and I desire thee to suppress nothing out of fear, nor to flatter me with lying words, or with what may please me, although the truth should be of a melancholy nature. For it seemed to me that, as I walked by the river, I saw kine fat and very large, seven in number, going from the river to the marshes; and other kine of the same number like them, met them out of the marshes, exceeding lean and ill-favored, which ate up the fat and the large kine, and yet were no better than before, and not less miserably pinched with famine. After I had seen this vision, I awaked out of my sleep; and being in disorder, and considering with myself what this appearance should be, I fell asleep again, and saw another dream, much more wonderful than the foregoing, which still did more affright and disturb me:—I saw seven ears of corn growing out of one root, having their heads borne down by the weight of the grains, and bending down with the fruit, which was now ripe and fit for reaping; and near these I saw seven other ears of corn, meager and weak, for want of rain, which fell to eating and consuming those that were fit for reaping, and put me into great astonishment."

And now I do not understand by what proofs they can maintain their position, who assert that worlds sometimes come into existence which are not dissimilar to each other, but in all respects equal. For if there is said to be a world similar in all respects [to the present], then it will come to pass that Adam and Eve will do the same things which they did before: there will be a second time the same deluge, and the same Moses will again lead a nation numbering nearly six hundred thousand out of Egypt; Judas will also a second time betray the Lord; Paul will a second time keep the garments of those who stoned Stephen; and everything which has been done in this life will be said to be repeated,—a state of things which I think cannot be established by any reasoning, if souls are actuated by freedom of will, and maintain either their advance or retrogression according to the power of their will. For souls are not driven on in a cycle which returns after many ages to the same round, so as either to do or desire this or that; but at whatever point the freedom of their own will aims, thither do they direct the course of their actions. For what these persons say is much the same as if one were to assert that if a medimnus of grain were to be poured out on the ground, the fall of the grain would be on the second occasion identically the same as on the first, so that every individual grain would lie for the second time close beside that grain where it had been thrown before, and so the medimnus would be scattered in the same order, and with the same marks as formerly; which certainly is an impossible result with the countless grains of a medimnus, even if they were to be poured out without ceasing for many ages. So therefore it seems to me impossible for a world to be restored for the second time, with the same order and with the same amount of births, and deaths, and actions; but that a diversity of worlds may exist with changes of no unimportant kind, so that the state of another world may be for some unmistakeable reasons better [than this], and for others worse, and for others again intermediate. But what may be the number or measure of this I confess myself ignorant, although, if any one can tell it, I would gladly learn.

After Celsus has finished speaking of the bees, in order to depreciate (as far as he can) the cities, and constitutions, and governments, and sovereignties not only of us Christians, but of all mankind, as well as the wars which men undertake on behalf of their native countries, he proceeds, by way of digression, to pass a eulogy upon the ants, in order that, while praising them, he may compare the measures which men take to secure their subsistence with those adopted by these insects, and so evince his contempt for the forethought which makes provision for winter, as being nothing higher than the irrational providence of the ants, as he regards it. Now might not some of the more simple-minded, and such as know not how to look into the nature of all things, be turned away (so far, at least, as Celsus could accomplish it) from helping those who are weighed down with the burdens [of life], and from sharing their toils, when he says of the ants, that “they help one another with their loads, when they see one of their number toiling under them?” For he who needs to be disciplined by the word, but who does not at all understand its voice, will say: “Since, then, there is no difference between us and the ants, even when we help those who are weary with bearing their heavy burdens, why should we continue to do so to no purpose?” And would not the ants, as being irrational creatures, be greatly puffed up, and think highly of themselves, because their works were compared to those of men? while men, on the other hand, who by means of their reason are enabled to hear how their philanthropy towards others is contemned, would be injured, so far as could be effected by Celsus and his arguments: for he does not perceive that, while he wishes to turn away from Christianity those who read his treatise, he turns away also the sympathy of those who are not Christians from those who bear the heaviest burdens [of life]. Whereas, had he been a philosopher, who was capable of perceiving the good which men may do each other, he ought, in addition to not removing along with Christianity the blessings which are found amongst men, to have lent his aid to co-operate (if he had it in his power) with those principles of excellence which are common to Christianity and the rest of mankind. Moreover, even if the ants set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that they may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their food, this is not to be deemed as evidence of the existence of reason among ants, but as the work of the universal mother, Nature, which adorned even irrational animals, so that even the most insignificant is not omitted, but bears traces of the reason implanted in it by nature. Unless, indeed, by these assertions Celsus means obscurely to intimate (for in many instances he would like to adopt Platonic ideas) that all souls are of the same species, and that there is no difference between that of a man and those of ants and bees, which is the act of one who would bring down the soul from the vault of heaven, and cause it to enter not only a human body, but that of an animal. Christians, however, will not yield their assent to such opinions: for they have been instructed before now that the human soul was created in the image of God; and they see that it is impossible for a nature fashioned in the divine image to have its [original] features altogether obliterated, and to assume others, formed after I know not what likeness of irrational animals.

A standing stalk of grain that contains two seahs and he forgot it, it is not considered “forgotten.” If it does not contain two seahs now, but is fit to yield two seahs, even if it was of an inferior kind of barley, it is regarded as full barley [grains].

One who buries turnips or radishes beneath a vine, if some of their leaves are uncovered, he need not have fear [of having transgressed] kilayim, or the sabbatical year, or tithes and they may also be pulled up on Shabbat. One who plants a [grain of] wheat and [a grain of] barley at one time, behold this is kilayim. Rabbi Judah says: it is not kilayim unless there are two grains of wheat and two grains of barley, or one grain of wheat and two grains of barley, or a grain of wheat, a grain of barley and a grain of spelt.

One who buries turnips or radishes beneath a vine, if some of their leaves are uncovered, he need not have fear [of having transgressed] kilayim, or the sabbatical year, or tithes and they may also be pulled up on Shabbat. One who plants a [grain of] wheat and [a grain of] barley at one time, behold this is kilayim. Rabbi Judah says: it is not kilayim unless there are two grains of wheat and two grains of barley, or one grain of wheat and two grains of barley, or a grain of wheat, a grain of barley and a grain of spelt.

One who buries turnips or radishes beneath a vine, if some of their leaves are uncovered, he need not have fear [of having transgressed] kilayim, or the sabbatical year, or tithes and they may also be pulled up on Shabbat. One who plants a [grain of] wheat and [a grain of] barley at one time, behold this is kilayim. Rabbi Judah says: it is not kilayim unless there are two grains of wheat and two grains of barley, or one grain of wheat and two grains of barley, or a grain of wheat, a grain of barley and a grain of spelt.

One may eat by virtue of similar produce regarded as ownerless [still found in the fields], but not when it was stored [and declared ownerless]. Rabbi Yose permits even when it was stored [and then declared ownerless]. One may continue to eat by virtue of the poor grains [that grow between the grass], or by virtue of the trees that yield bi-annually, but one must not eat by virtue of winter-grapes. Rabbi Judah permits provided they began to ripen before the summer [of the seventh year] had ended.

Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity]. And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer. If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.

Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity]. And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer. If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.

If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet. If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah. If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (produce), he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only. They are subject to hallah and tithes.

If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet. If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah. If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (produce), he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only. They are subject to hallah and tithes.

All menahot must be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The rubbing and the beating apply is performed with the grains of wheat. Rabbi Yose says: also to the dough. All menahot consist of ten cakes each, except the showbread and the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which consist of twelve cakes each, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Meir says: they all consist of twelve cakes each, except the loaves of the todah and of the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten cakes each.

They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

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.

The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths. In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever. As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: “In patches it is obligated at the beginning and at the end.” What is “in patches?” Rebbi Jeremiah said, just as we have stated: “He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage.” Rebbi Yose said, for example nigella: If one sows it, it produces thin bulbs; if one plants seedlings, it produces large bulbs. For if it were not so, we would say because it is for sowing it should be freed from peah. But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it? It is finished and needs only to dry out.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder: He makes it two by two cubits, but decreases continuously to an arbitrarily small distance. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if it is subdivided into garden beds, but if all is one bed, it does not apply. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: I may sow my field with fifty kinds, twenty-five here and twenty-five there; this is in two rows. If that is so, would it be permitted even between himself and his neighbor? Or in a dry spot? Then it parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi said, he starts with an area of bet rova‘ and narrows it down to three furrows of the ploughshare. Does Rebbi not accept that between grains one needs a bet rova‘? That is for a square field, here for a garden bed. Do the rabbis not recognize garden beds? Rebbi Yudan said, the minimal distance for Rebbi is the maximal distance for the rabbis.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “If they produce greenery it should be plowed under:” all is permitted. “If they are green stalks, they should be broken:” the straw is permitted but the grains are forbidden. “If they produced grain it must be burned:” all is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all is forbidden. What does our statement mean, “if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned”? It parallels what we have stated there: “Orlah and kilaim of a vineyard. Anything that usually is buried should be buried. Anything that usually is burned should be burned.”

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

MISHNAH: Kilaim in a vineyard are forbidden to be sown or kept and are forbidden for any use. Kilaim of grains are forbidden to be sown or kept but are permitted for eating and certainly for use. Kilaim of textiles are permitted for everything; they are only forbidden to be worn. Kilaim of animals may be raised and kept; they are only forbidden to be mated. Kilaim of animals are forbidden [to be mated] with one another.

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.

There, we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.

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

It implies that they become ṭevel in bundles. Why not single ears? One never gathers for that. But may grains be gathered thus? One does not grow for that. But these, one gathers for this, one grows for this.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

MISHNAH: If somebody peels barley, he may peel one by one and eat but if he peeled and collected in his hand he is obligated. If somebody rolls wheat grains he may blow away the chaff from his hand and eat but if he blew away and stored in the fold of his toga, he is obligated. If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free. If it was sown as vegetable, seeds and greenery are obligated. Rebbi Eliezer said, dill is tithed seeds, vegetable, and perianths. But the Sages say, only cress and wild rocket are tithed seeds and vegetable.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, I may peel two by two. It is stated so: “Barley, two are free, three obligated; wheat, three are free, four obligated.” Huna bar Ḥinena and Rav Taḥlifa bar Immi were sitting before Rebbi Eleazar. {Rebbi Jonah said, either all are “bar Immi” but this one “bar Rav Immi” or all are “bar Rav Immi”.} He had [grains] up to the knuckles of his fingers. They were taking from him. He turned his face to the wall and showed them his hand full. It is stated so: Only he should not sift into a reed-basket or into a wide basket. For the Sabbath, up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: Here, they said for barley, two are free, three obligated; there, you say so? He said to him, there is a difference; here you say that he may put the remainder back. It was stated so: When has this been said, when he is not close to the threshing floor. But when he was close to the threshing floor [he can have] even more since he may put the remainder back.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

There, we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites, here if it was mixed. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together.

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

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows his father’s argument. What is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted. Rebbi Abba Mari said, what is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted. But Rebbi Simeon said that only about aftergrowth of vegetables; did he say that for aftergrowth of grains? He established that aftergrowth of vegetables and aftergrowth of grains are the same.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows his father’s argument. What is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted. Rebbi Abba Mari said, what is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted. But Rebbi Simeon said that only about aftergrowth of vegetables; did he say that for aftergrowth of grains? He established that aftergrowth of vegetables and aftergrowth of grains are the same.

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water. Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

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

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, on a holiday one sends only portions, but the House of Hillel say one sends domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, whether alive or slaughtered. One sends wines, oils, and flour, and legumes, but no grains. Rebbi Simeon permits grains.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, on a holiday one sends only portions, but the House of Hillel say one sends domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, whether alive or slaughtered. One sends wines, oils, and flour, and legumes, but no grains. Rebbi Simeon permits grains.

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos two se‘ah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also they assigned it for cooking. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock …”. But did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …”.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

As we have stated. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

R. Jose b. Hannina answered : He is worthy of the following blessings ; as it is said,] "Oh that thou wouldst hearken to My commandments! Then would thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea ; thy seed also would be as the sand, and the offspring of thy body like the grains thereof ; his name would not be cut off nor destroyed from before Me" (Is. xlviii. 18 f.).

The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.

is that "in their season" means that the rain will fall only on the eves of Wednesday and Friday, for thus we find that in the time of Simeon b. Shetaḥ the rain fell on the eves of Wednesday and Friday with the result that the wheat grains became as big as kidneys, and the barley grains as big as the kernels of olives, and the lentils as big as gold dinars. The Sages have preserved samples of them for future generations in order to demonstrate how much loss is caused by sin, as it is said (Jerem., 5. 25): "Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good from you." Similarly, we find that in the days of Herod, when they were rebuilding the Temple, rain fell during the night, and in the morning the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, and the sun shone, so that everyone would rise early for his work—all of which demonstrated to the people that their work was for the sake of Heaven.

is that "in their season" means that the rain will fall only on the eves of Wednesday and Friday, for thus we find that in the time of Simeon b. Shetaḥ the rain fell on the eves of Wednesday and Friday with the result that the wheat grains became as big as kidneys, and the barley grains as big as the kernels of olives, and the lentils as big as gold dinars. The Sages have preserved samples of them for future generations in order to demonstrate how much loss is caused by sin, as it is said (Jerem., 5. 25): "Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good from you." Similarly, we find that in the days of Herod, when they were rebuilding the Temple, rain fell during the night, and in the morning the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, and the sun shone, so that everyone would rise early for his work—all of which demonstrated to the people that their work was for the sake of Heaven.