halakhah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: They disagree about a rich owner. But a poor owner, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The gleanings of your harvest, not what anybody harvests with his bare hands. And equally, the dropped berries of your vineyard, and not what drops from hand-picking.

HALAKHAH: Here you say that “one estimates what amount of gleanings that would have yielded, and he gives that to the poor.” But there, you say “all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They fined him because he put the stack on the gleanings of the poor. That is for intentional transgression; it is also for unintentional error, for sheaves, for a wheat stack on top of barley, even if it was stacked by others without his knowledge, even if he called the poor and they did not come.

HALAKHAH: What is standing grain that saves standing grain? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the same as we have stated: a single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the standing grain. Rebbi Yose said, only if the harvested field surrounds it, and only if its head reaches the standing grain, and only if it can be cut together with standing grain. If it can be cut together with standing grain but standing grain cannot be cut with it, it is saved. If there were two, the inner one can be cut together with the outermost standing grain, but the outer one cannot be cut with the standing grain; the inner one is saved and saves.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who waters his field before a poor person had entered it, if his potential loss is greater than the poor man’s, it is permitted, but if the poor man’s loss is greater than his, it is prohibited. Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases he deposits them on the fence and the poor man comes and takes what is his.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: A father and his son, a man and his relative, two brothers, two associates redeem Second Tithe for one another and give tithe of the poor to one another. Rebbi Jehudah said, a curse should come upon him who gives tithe of the poor to his father. He said, why? If they were both poor!

HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah is about someone who sold the field with the standing crop. But if someone sold the standing crop and retained the field for himself, for him I read “your field”, for the other one I read “your harvest.”

HALAKHAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget.” If the owner forgot but the workers did not, it is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written: “When you are harvesting and you forget.” Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah says, from the top, as you say (1Sam. 17:5): “A brass helmet on his head.” Round bundles, Rebbi Avinah said, from the bottom, as you say (Deut. 32:34): “It is hidden with me.” חֲרָרָה a wheel. Small sheaves, Rebbi Joḥanan said (Deut. 24:19): “When you will be harvesting the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” just as harvest has no other harvest after it, so too a sheaf, which has no other sheaf-making after it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere is for the poor and not for the rich.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult about the House of Shammai; closure and stack are definite things, and they say it is not a forgotten sheaf. It is difficult about the House of Hillel; cattle and vessels are not definite things, and they say it is a forgotten sheaf.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he made them like a Gamma (Γ).

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it. Some Tannaïm stated: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Illa said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce. And why a sheaf surrounded by harvest and not a sheaf surrounded by standing produce? Under a sheaf surrounded by harvest is the field, under a sheaf surrounded by standing produce is straw.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, not only if he gave it but even if he took it with the intention of giving it.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks at night, or a blind person day or night.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: “of two rectangles” and he forgot it. What are we dealing with? If it is because it is marked, are there not other olive trees? If it is because it is in a row, it is considered a row in itself. It must be because of row and of rows.

HALAKHAH: This means that dropped berries become sanctified in the act of falling down. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: There is a difference, because he prevented them from reaching the ground.

HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner. Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller. Rebbi Immi said to him: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him!

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

HALAKHAH: Similarly, if there is no harvest there are no single berries, until there should be vintage along vintage, not if a wild animal ate it.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, why are they called nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Abba Shaul used to call them “gropers.” Some formulate in the Mishnah nĕmūšōt, some formulate mĕšūšōt. He who says nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Those who say mĕšūšōt, because they grope to come. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Menaḥem: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri used to go out with the second wave of seekers and returned with his needs for the entire year.

HALAKHAH: How far? Rebbi Ḥanina said, to a place where he usually goes and returns the same day. It happened that Rebbi trusted five brothers about five kor of wheat. Is that not impossible? A little here and a little there adds up to a kor.

HALAKHAH: Should the poor be trustworthy if they say: It was given me as grain and I turned it into flour, it was given me as grain and I turned it into bread? It is clear to him that he is trustworthy. Even if everybody knew that most people store gleanings, he is not trustworthy. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, at a place where one presses gleanings of grapes, the poor shall be trusted when they say, this wine is from gleanings of grapes.” Similarly, at a place where one presses picked olives, the poor should be trusted when they say, this oil is from picked olives.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: A quarter of rice, an ukla of spices, a pound of vegetables, three qab carob, half a log of wine, a quarter of a log of olive oil, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, one etrog. What is the reason? (Deut. 26:12) “They shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” give him to satisfy him. Ḥizqiah asked his father: From where do we get all these amounts? He said to them, a pebble supports a tower. Rebbi Ḥananiah was sitting before Rebbi Ilaï, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, until he said to him, is it not depraved to destroy instead of building up?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has more than the measure: If he wanted to save, he takes away half and gives half, but if he has only the measure, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves. Rebbi Ḥizqiah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has the exact measure: If he wants to save, he takes away one half and gives one half; since if he takes away one half and gives one half it becomes less, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves.

HALAKHAH: Tamḥui is collected every day, the chest every Friday. Tamḥui is for everybody, the chest is only for local people.

HALAKHAH: A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store, made him spend a carat, then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.

HALAKHAH: This means that 50 at work are better than 200 not at work.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages enumerated them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property.

HALAKHAH: Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, i. e., eliminate the sure tithes. But demay one does not have to eliminate.

HALAKHAH: Since he bought it as seeds there is no difference whether it is something of which the seed disappears or something of which the seed does not disappear. Rebbi Johanan said, we have stated this: “If he bought as seeds and then changed his mind to use them for consumption, they enter by thought. If he bought for consumption and then changed his mind to use them as seeds, not all is from him.”

HALAKHAH: One may separate it while naked because it does not need a benediction.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Garlic from Baalbek, onions from Rikhpah, split beans from Cilicia, and Egyptian lentils.” Because these kinds also grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages had to attach marks to them. “But filberts, pistachios, and pine nuts, since these kinds do not grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages did not have to attach marks to them.” Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is the opposite regarding the obligation of these kinds; since these kinds do not grow outside of the Land, the Sages had to enumerate them. But is there not fig cake from Bosra? It is pounded. But dates from Alexandria? They are thin. But carob from Kiari? It is cut. But rice from the Ḥolata? It has more numerous kernels and is reddish. But cumin from Cyprus? It is curved.

HALAKHAH: “What he buys,” to eat it. But did we not state: “What he eats?” Hence, “what he buys” in order to sell it. But did we not state: “What he sells?” Hence, “what he buys” in order to sell it and “what he sells” from his own gathering.

HALAKHAH: “He will not buy wet from him,” hence dry is permitted since the amē haäreẓ are trustworthy as to preparation. And it was stated: “The am haäreẓ is trustworthy to say, these fruits were never prepared. But he is not trustworthy to say that they were prepared but did not accept impurity.”

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “If one buys from the baker, how does he tithe?” There you say, the buyer separates, and here you say, the baker separates. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One says, here if he works in purity, there if he works in impurity. The other says, here in retail, there in wholesale. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of purity, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar is the one who said, here in retail, there in wholesale. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he works in purity, let him separate everything. It would be logical that he should not give anything because one does not deliver certain grain to the am haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if it is in retail, let him separate everything. Grocers are not permitted to sell demay!

HALAKHAH: In the opinion of this Tanna, they gave a measure for dry produce but not for fluids, they gave a value for fluids but not for dry produce. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A hin is wholesale, less than a hin is retail. A nummus is retail, more than a nummus is wholesale.” In the opinion of that Tanna, they gave a measure for fluids but not for dry produce, they gave a value for dry produce but not for fluids.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain wholesaler. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is according to everybody; there is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. But does this not disagree with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that as soon as a person abandons anything of his property, it is legally abandoned as soon as it leaves his power. There is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose says that nothing may leave the power of its owners except if it is taken up; otherwise it was not legally abandoned. There is a difference here, because the one who abandons abandons wholesale, and the one who takes it up, takes up only retail quantities.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One does not pass by foodstuffs.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That means, in earlier times. But now it is permitted because of sorcery.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted it because of the glory of the Sabbath. If it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, why does he have to ask him? By way of finding a cause. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The fear of the Sabbath is on him and he will speak the truth. If the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why did we state that at nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed? Because of one who does not fear the Sabbath. It was stated: “If he asks him on weekdays, he may not eat on the Sabbath.” According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, this is fine. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath; when he asks him on weekdays, should he not eat on the Sabbath?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of a protogamia they permitted because of hatred. Rebbi Avin said, here they permitted ṭevel because of human relations. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because of human relations, why is it only on condition that the host tell him that it was tithed? If he invited him on the first Sabbath but he did not come, can the second Sabbath become the first? Rav Ḥisda said, here we have learned that a ḥaver may not eat at a meal that has no name.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Huna in the name of Rav: He who eats his produce without having separated the tithe of the poor commits a deadly sin. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he knows that it would be a deadly sin, he will separate it. What is the reason of the rabbis? He only has to give a name but does not have to separate it.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

HALAKHAH: But is a single witness trustworthy? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life.

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

HALAKHAH: “ He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together takes for heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah, that is one in 20, and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane ṭevel and another one in 48 next to it; the remainder is heave for everything. The profane which is in it and that which I made profane ṭevel is made tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, the Second Tithe is North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.”

HALAKHAH: How long? A student of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, up to 30 days. How is that? If he bought from him at the beginning of 30 days, in the middle, and at the end. The first and the second are one kind, the first and the third are two kinds.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Meïr says, a baker makes one type and a merchant uses several bakers. Rebbi Jehudah says, a baker makes several types and a merchant uses only one baker.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked: According to Rebbi Meïr, should he not tithe each stem separately? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Meïr said, why did it become impure? Only because of spittle!” As you will say, there it is usual to open bundles and he binds using his mouth, but here, is it usual to open bundles to risk having the outer ones inside and the inner ones outside?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him and tithes for him.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated: “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.”

HALAKHAH: The rabbis object to Rebbi Eliezer: How did they acquire? He said to them, do you not agree with me that if they agreed among themselves, tithes go to the workers? Even if they made a condition, how did they acquire? If there is nothing said, it is as if somebody said: Harvest from this land so that its tithes should be yours. They said to him, there is no stipulation here; if nothing is said there is no stipulation. It is as if he said, harvest this land on condition that you take one tenth for yourselves.

HALAKHAH: According to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, if an impure Cohen and a pure Cohen were partners, would they not split the tithes? There he may sell the tithes to another pure Cohen, here can the villager make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah treats olives like fields but the rabbis do not treat olives like fields. Now it seems that Rebbi Judah is thinking like Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer says, “the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.” So here, if a Cohen or a Levite received a field (as sharecroppers), the tithes are theirs because they came because of them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated: “One should not sell him a ploughing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

HALAKHAH: : There, we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so: “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with demay. Hence, not with certain produce? A Mishnah says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had ṭevel figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or on the field.” If you want to say that we deal with demay, you cannot do so, since it is stated: “If it was demay.” What Rebbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with demay. He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with demay. What is the difference between demay and certain produce? For demay, a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Concerning the mixing of the cup.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is ṭevel. If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

HALAKHAH: What is done? ‘From before I shall separate it.’ Think about it, if it was pure heave, ‘from before I shall eat it.’ Think about it, if it was impure heave, ‘from before I shall deposit it in a corner.’

HALAKHAH: 8: We have stated for this: “He takes from the second one two figs and two tenths and a tenth of a tenth.” Samuel says, you cannot state that; when he takes one in ten he has to take one in a hundred, when he takes one in a hundred he has to take one in a thousand, when he takes one in a thousand he has to take one in ten thousand.

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Why does he not take two? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: When he separated half of the heave from another place.

HALAKHAH: It is written: (Lev. 19:19) “you should not sow your field kilaim;” I could think, even two kinds of wheat or two kinds of barley. “You should not breed your animals kilaim;” I could think, even black on white cattle, or white on black cattle. “And kilaim cloth, שעטנז, should not be worn by you;” I could think, even two kinds of wool or two kinds of linen. It was made explicit about garments, (Deut. 22:11) “do not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together.” Just as for garments where I forbade you two kinds, neither one is of the genus of the other, so kilaim that I forbade you at any place, neither one is of the genus of the other.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Menasheh said: The opinion of the Sages is that one takes a small piece from the pericarp of a green melon and plants it and it grows to a water melon. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and plants it and it grows to a sweet melon. Rebbi Jehudah says, it in itself is kilaim. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and a small piece from the pericarp of an apple and puts them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim. Therefore it is called “apple melon” in the Greek language.

HALAKHAH: “Turnips and naphew, cabbage and cauliflower,” thin cabbage. “Beets and orach,” orach. “Rebbi Aqibah added garlic and dwarf garlic,” little garlic. “Onion and dwarf onion,” little “radish.” “Lupine and wild lupine,” pdmw‘h, are not kilaim one with the other

HALAKHAH: “Quince.” Rebbi Jonah said, quince. Why are they called “prepared”, because there is no tree only producing for the pot except that kind.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonathan said, there are some where they considered the fruit, and there are some where they considered the leaves. Turnips and radish, they went in their regard after the fruit. Turnips and naphew, they considered after the leaves. They objected: But radish and naphew have similar fruits and similar leaves, and you say, they are kilaim? Rebbi Jonah said, in that case, they considered the taste of the produce.

HALAKHAH: Hence, dog and rural dog are not kilaim. This is not following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that they are kilaim. Even though Rebbi Meïr says that the dog is a domesticated animal, he agrees that the rural dog is a wild animal. Hence, according to Rebbi Meïr, dog and rural dog are kilaim.

HALAKHAH: The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says that a man takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melonand a small piece from the pericarp of an apple, places them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim, and here he says so? There, because he places them so that they touch one another, unite and become kilaim, but here it is vegetable on tree.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levy, asked: Apart from that, is it not forbidden because of seeds under a vine? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if he sets its root down more than three hand-breadths, distant more than six hand-breadths [from the vine], following what was stated: “roots of madder that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, they stated only turnips and radishes, nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether turnips, radishes, or any other plants. What are we talking about? If because of the rules of vegetables and trees, why do I need vine and radishes, even any other plants? If because he does not want them to take root, why turnips and radishes, even any other species also? From what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “for example bunches of turnips and bunches of radishes,” it follows that the reason is only because he does not want them to take root.

HALAKHAH: We have stated, “which contains.” Some Tannaïm state, “into which fell.” Rebbi Mana said, he who says “which contains” means one in 24, he who says “into which fell” means one in 25. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both for him who says “which contains” and for him who says “into which fell,” it means one in 24. How is that? “Which contains,” if it is cut, “into which fell,” if it is standing.

HALAKHAH: “ How long can it remain sprouting? That it should remain in the ground three days in a muddy place, but in a dry place it needs more [time].” We have stated on that: Part of the day is like an entire day in a muddy place, and if it started growing but he brought his animals and they browsed it clean it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One may put sheaves next to dried-up vines. Rebbi Yose said, that means that one may not plant a dry vine next to dry standing grain. May one sow next to dry vines? Let us hear from the following:“A dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, even cotton is forbidden but does not sanctify.

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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated only: “A vertex of wheat;” hence, a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: What is חריע? Yellow dye.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For the first part, Rebbi Meïr says, even jailed, even adjacent, but the rabbis say, on condition that they were neither jailed nor adjacent. How is that done? 3,2,1,2,l.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

HALAKHAH: (Is. 61:11) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

HALAKHAH: “Any kind of seeds, etc.” Mustard and smooth peas are counted as seed-plants; if one sowed them for use as vegetables he may not put them in a garden bed. Large peas and Egyptian beans sown to produce seeds one may not put in a garden bed. If one sowed them for use as vegetables he may put them in a garden bed. All other garden seeds that are not eaten, even though one sowed to produce seeds, he may put them in a garden bed.

HALAKHAH: “A vertex, etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.

HALAKHAH: “If one plants two rows”, etc. Ḥizqiah said, there is disagreement. He who says there 12 [cubits], here also 12 [cubits]. He who says there eight, here also eight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this Mishnah is according to everybody. A strip of melon is good enough among strips of melons to be saved by eight.

HALAKHAH: (He who plants his vineyard, etc.). Cahana said, according to the words of Rebbi Ismael sometimes there are 16, sometimes 12, sometimes 8. When he gives all the working space in the interior, 16. Part interior and part exterior, 12. All exterior, 8. Samuel says, it always must be 12. We have stated thus: “It is determined according to the statements of both of them: Rebbi Ismael says 12, Rebbi Aqiba says 8.” Now, Rebbi Ismael says 12, and the rabbis say 12; in what do they disagree? Closing up! In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael one may not close up, but the rabbis say he may.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Ismael imply that one allows space for tending even for a single row.