halakhah

HALAKHAH: “A bald spot in a vineyard.” Rebbi Joḥanan said that the rules for a bald spot in a vineyard and a dried-up vineyard are the same. A bald spot is cleared in its middle, a dried-up vineyard is cleared on all four sides. Rebbi Yose said, this applies to a large vineyard but if it comes from the plants of a small vineyard, the rules of a bald spot in a vineyard do not apply. Also, we have stated: “What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in its middle but enough for a vineyard remained, whether it be from all four sides, or from three, or from two opposite sides.” How is that? Five rows of seven each, one took out one row of vineyard, that leaves four vineyards and three intervals. One takes out another one, that leaves three vineyards and two intervals. One takes out another one, that leaves two vineyards and one interval.

HALAKHAH: Ten laths at the in-betweens and what is standing is four hand-breadths wide, and what is standing is more than what is torn down: where it is standing it is permitted, where it is torn down it is forbidden. If one made laths in front of the vines, and what is standing is less than four hand-breadths, and what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is obvious that where it is standing it is permitted, where it is torn down it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: (Num. 34:2) “The land of Canaan according to its domains.” Domains that the Canaanites invented. Rebbi Immi asked, does one learn from the Canaanites?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aḥai said, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own? There, he said that nobody can sanctify property that is not his own, but here, his and his neighbor’s property are counted together to forbid the ground in the middle. Rebbi Mana did not say so, but did not Rebbi Samuel say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; just as Rebbi Simeon said that nobody can sanctify property that is not his own, so he said that nobody can jail property that is not his own, but here, his and his neighbor’s property are counted together to forbid the ground in the middle.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the space of the trunks. Just as you say, eight except for the space of the trunks, so also four except for the space of the trunks.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: A bald spot in a vineyard is like a vineyard that dried up. One clears the ground of a bald spot in a vineyard in its interior, one clears the ground of a dried-up vineyard on all sides.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said to them: Those about which you say that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, are the essence of the vineyard! Rebbi Ḥananiah said, that applies in the case where there are six parallel six. But if there are five parallel five, everybody agrees that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent. Rebbi Mana said, that means if there are five parallel five. But if there are six parallel six, if you disregard the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, these are like those! What does that mean which we have stated: One disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent? Rebbi Huna said, that one is permitted to draw them over his seeds. Rebbi Mana said, that supports what Rebbi Yose had said, that if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden, outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted and a vineyard is forbidden

HALAKHAH: Unless it separates it and the area needed to tend it, since we have stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the case of a ditch that separates it and the area needed to tend it.” Hence, Rebbi Eliezer thinks that even if it does not separate it from the area needed to tend it. When do they disagree? If there are two rows on each side. But if there was only one row on either side, once it reaches three vines there no longer is a vineyard.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if he sowed near the middle vine. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Only if the middle vine is surrounded by vegetables. How is it computed? Seven rows by seven rows. Subtract from them four vines at the four corners; there are 45 vines remaining. That is what we stated: “He sanctifies 45 vines”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they taught about the worker.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, our Mishnah speaks of one standing in a grain field while the wind carried the seeds into a vineyard. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: Was [the Mishnah] speaking about one standing in [a grain field] or even one standing [in a vineyard]? If you say in a grain field, then not in a vineyard. If you say even one standing [in a vineyard] there is no difference. Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If one was sowing and the wind carried the seeds behind him, this is permitted, since it happened by accident.” What are we dealing with? If he stands in the vineyard he is tending it, and you say it is permitted? But we must deal with the case of one standing in a grain field and the wind carried the seeds into a vineyard.

HALAKHAH: Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one lets them grow for camels.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult. Is it not forbidden anyhow for the House of Shammai as a vineyard? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. In that case, it would not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence. Rebbi Jonah inquired: May one sow in between? Is it in a straight line, that you say it is forbidden to sow in between? May one sow between the vines? As you say in the case of a row of gourds that it is forbidden to sow in between the pits, so here also it is forbidden to sow in between the vines.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

HALAKHAH: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the place of the trunks? Explain that as eight cubits and a little more. And why has this not been stated? Are you not concurring with Rebbi Joḥanan that in all linear measurements stated by the Sages, “more than” means [more by] a hand-breadth? But what he added is little, therefore it was not stated.

HALAKHAH: “He should not bring seeds over it,” therefore it is permitted on the side. What are we dealing with? If it is because of seeds in a tree, why are we dealing with a vine and not any tree? If it is because of working space, they should mention six. It might follow Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba says three. If it were following Rebbi Aqiba, it should mention three on the side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is because of seeds on top of a vine.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This refers to your own vineyard. From where about another person’s vineyard? The verse says, kilaim, no vineyard and no kilaim. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, for Rebbi Meïr said that a Gentile cannot acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it by a Gentile who sowed his vineyard kilaim and a Jew bought it from him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So is the Mishnah: One may harvest it even on a holiday.

HALAKHAH: Following Ben Azai, one should shave them off. One found it stated: Rebbi Aqiba said, one should return them, Ben Azai said, one should shave them off.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “The only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis there are others: A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not. He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is guilty, from one without a hole he is free from punishment. A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares. Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanina quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, it is pure.”

HALAKHAH: “Kilaim in a vineyard are forbidden,” etc. It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” Not only sowing, how about keeping? The verse says, vineyard and no kilaim. Does this follow Rebbi Aqiba, for Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition? Rebbi Yose said, it is the word of everybody. Everybody agrees that what is forbidden is forbidden if he did not preserve through an action, but if he preserved through an action he is whipped, as it is stated: He who covers kilaim is whipped.

HALAKHAH: “Domestic animal with domestic animal, etc.” I might think one cannot put a male next to a female nor a female next to a male; the verse says (Lev. 19:19) “do not cause your domestic animals to copulate”. You are only forbidden to cause to copulate but you may put a male next to a female or a female next to a male. But what did he actually do? When it ejaculates it does so by itself.

HALAKHAH: : “One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart.” It is stated: Rebbi Meïr frees from prosecution. If it supported, whether in ascent or in descent, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because the rope is carried between them.

HALAKHAH: “Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Ramak is without χαλινός “bit”. As one says (Est. 8:10): “the sons of wild horses”.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

HALAKHAH: “Hand towels, etc.” There, we have stated: “There are three kinds of towels. Hand towels may become impure by load; scroll wraps may become impure by the dead; the wrappings of the Levites’ harps are always pure.” Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one may put them on the pillow and sleep on them. Rav said, because he puts them under his upper arms.

HALAKHAH: “Shrouds of the dead, etc.” It is written (Ps. 88:6): “Among the dead is freedom.” When a person dies he becomes free from the Commandments.

HALAKHAH: Bursīn are birri. Burdesīn are delma. Dalmatian garb are short sleeved tunics and overcoats. Pinon shoes are socks.

HALAKHAH: It could have stated שעו and not טוי. If it had stated שעז but not טוי we would have said that spinning is permitted. But the Mishnah does not say so, but “only spun and woven cloth is forbidden because of kilaim.” It could have stated שעט and not נוז. If it had stated שעט but not נוז we would have said that weaving is permitted. But the Mishnah does not say so, but “a woolen border on a linen garment is forbidden because it goes around like the woven part.” It could have stated טנז and not שע. If it had stated טנז but not שע we would have said that carding is permitted. But the Mishnah does not say so, but “felt is forbidden because it is carded.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, not until it comes down an entire side. Rebbi Yannai said, they said to Rebbi Ḥanina, get out and read! Did we not state, “if the two ends appear on the same side?” That means, only if it goes down and up. And did we not state, “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three needle-stitches.” That means [the thread] goes down, up, and down. But so and so.

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough, etc.” It is written (Ex. 23:12): “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall rest.” And it is written (Ex. 34:21): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.” Where do we hold? If one speaks about the Sabbath of Creation, was it not already said (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work?” If one speaks about Sabbatical years, was it not already said (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard?” If it cannot refer to the Sabbath of Creation nor to Sabbatical years, let it refer to the prohibition of the first two terms. “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody buys three trees on another person’s property, spaced so that ten trees could be planted in a bet seah and that the ox and its harness could pass between them, then he acquired the ground under them, the ground between them, and outside the space for the harvester and his basket. Rav said, if they form a group. Samuel says, also if they are in a straight line. Rebbi Yose said, this refers to there but not to here. Rebbi Jonah said, it refers even to here, if they are close. Rebbi Mana said to him, did we not state “that the ox and its harness could pass between them”? Come and see, if the ox and its harness can pass between them, the roots can expand laterally, but if the ox and its harness cannot pass between them, the roots cannot expand laterally.

HALAKHAH: “Any useless tree, etc.” Why did they mention fig trees? Because their fruits are large and they produce many. The Etrog tree has large fruits but it produces few of them. Olive trees produce much but its fruits are not large. But these produce much and its fruits are large. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, all trees produce one year less than another year but the fig tree produces every year.

HALAKHAH: “Three trees, etc.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Trees belonging to one owner and ground belonging to a second owner are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah for them. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated more: Three trees belonging to three different owners are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah until the New Year.

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two. One willow for the lulab, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough.

HALAKHAH: “Saplings and gourds, etc.” That is only if there are more saplings than gourds. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd? Rebbi Mana objected, did we not state: “Three green melons, three gourds, and four saplings go together and one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them.” It fits only for the last sentence: Rabban Gamliel says, if there are ten gourds in a bet seah, one ploughs the entire bet seah until New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd?

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough,” etc. Who is the Tanna who considers humidity? He is Rebbi Meïr. Then Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel? It must be that Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah? But for Rebbi Meïr it is taught as a disagreement and for Rebbi Simeon it is the opinion of everybody. Hence, the author of “until when may one plough a shadeless field in the year preceding the Sabbatical” is Rebbi Meïr, but following Rebbi Simeon everybody agrees to “until Pentecost.”

HALAKHAH: “One gives manure and one hoes in melon fields”, etc. May one plough for these? It was stated: “As long as one may plough one may fertilize and hoe; if one may not plough then one may neither fertilize nor hoe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this: “One fertilizes and hoes in melon and gourd fields until the New Year; the same applies to irrigated fields,” and we have stated on this: “One ploughs irrigated fields until the New Year; Rebbi says until three days before the New Year so that one may sow and it starts to form roots, or one plants and it starts to form roots.” If it would grow roots in three days! “Rebbi says, until three months before the New Year so that one may sow rice, have it form roots, transplant it and have the roots take hold.”

HALAKHAH: “One dirties saplings” etc. The Mishnah follows Rebbi, but according to the rabbis one dirties, one removes worms in the Sabbatical year but not on [the intermediate days of] holidays. In neither case does one cup but one may remove what one sees.

HALAKHAH: “One does not plant … or graft”, etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Zimra: Our Mishnah [deals with the] unadvertised [case], but if it is clear [e. g. when] he ploughed, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Rice, millet,” etc. For produce they went after its being a third [ripe], for rice after roots taking hold, and for vegetables the collection is the time of its tithing. From where that they could go after its being a third [ripe] for produce? (Deut. 16:16) “From your threshing-floor and from your wine-press.” “From your threshing-floor”, not all your threshing-floor, “from your wine-press”, not all your wine-press. Then also if it is less than a third [ripe]? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deut. 14:22): “Tithe! You should tithe all produce of your seed,” something which may be sown and will sprout; this excludes produce less than a third [ripe] which when sown will not sprout. Then one should tithe the first third for the past and the other two thirds for the future! Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the holiday of Tabernacles. Just as Tabernacles belongs to the next year but you celebrate it for the past, so this one is for the future and you celebrate it for the past.

HALAKHAH: What are sterile onions? Those rural onions which do not form seeds.

HALAKHAH: Why do I need that they became hard? Even if they did not become hard! If they became hard they fall under the rules of kitchen seed plants that are not eaten.

HALAKHAH: “When may one bring out,” etc. Is it permitted to assemble a dungheap at the door of one’s courtyard before the agricultural workers stop? Silanus asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and he forbade it to him. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he permitted it, and they were gossipping about him that he was taking the tithe. He instructed himself to leave the Land, so that he could not take the tithe. Then should it be forbidden even after the agricultural workers did stop because of the bad impression, that they would not say, he brings it out to his irrigated field? The people of one’s town know whether he has an irrigated field or not. Rebbi Yose said, this means that they did not worry about a bad impression on passers-by.

HALAKHAH: Why is this stated twice? Rebbi Jeremiah said, there if he used fewer boxes, but here if he makes it according to the measure. We have stated thus about Rebbi Simeon: “On condition that he use no less than three boxes per dungheap.”

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A field cleared of thistles may be sown after the Sabbatical year. If it was improved or manured, it may not be sown after the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jonah said, so is the Mishnah: He who wants to put his flock on his field makes a corral enclosing two ḅet seah.

HALAKHAH: How is this? Three times nine, nine times three, 27.

HALAKHAH: Not only if the plough displaced them, but even if the plough might displace them in the future. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “They may be taken if among all of them there are two which are a two-person load”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The Mishnah refers to the prohibition of the two terms. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” Does this not refer to the prohibition of the two terms, so here also about the prohibition of the two terms. Rebbi Shammai inquired: If this is about the prohibition of the two terms, did we state that one is permitted to plough but forbidden to build? So it must refer to the permission of the two terms. If it refers to the permission of the two terms, we have stated: “But he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.” Rebbi Mana said, is Rebbi Shammai correct? In the first case, one is permitted to plough because that prepares for the year after the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to build since that prepares for the Sabbatical. The Mishnah does not say so, “but he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.”

HALAKHAH: “Shoulder stones come from anywhere,” even from his own [property] and “the contractor may bring from anywhere,” even smaller than shoulder stones.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

HALAKHAH: “A field that had been cleared of thistles”, etc. There they say, when its thistles were removed, but the rabbis here say, when they were ploughed under. What is improvement in the opinion of the rabbis here? Everybody ploughs once and he ploughs twice. How can that be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government does not oppress, but here the government oppresses.

HALAKHAH: “One rents ploughed fields,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well; then I will rent it after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succed”. For him who says plough it well, then I will rent it after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them”? “May you succed.” For him who says may you succed, what means “one greets them”? Jewish greeting, “Peace upon you.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody thins out olive trees,” etc. What is thinning? He removes one and leaves two, or removes two and leaves one. It was stated by the House of Rebbi: He removes one and leaves two. But did we not state: If somebody levels among vines, three adjacent to one another. Therefore, thinning must mean that one removes two and leaves one. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita when he thins out the first time, and what was stated by the House of Rebbi when he already had thinned.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody cuts down an olive tree,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody cuts reeds, Rebbi Jehudah says at a place where one is used to cut, he should tear out; at a place where one is used to tear out, he should cut. In any case, he should cut higher than a hand-breadth. If somebody cuts down for logs, he should not plane and cut in steps, cut in steps to create joints, but he should try to cut them straight.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, at a place where one usually planes, he should cut in steps, in steps he should plane and cut down at the ground, but he should not cut with an axe.”

HALAKHAH: : “If somebody cuts shoots of vines,” etc. What means ביחילו? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it comes alive, as you say (Zach.11:8): “And their souls were too much for me.”

HALAKHAH: “Olives containing a quarter log per seah” etc. What is “a third”? Of a log. The Mishnah for those which produce three log per seah.

HALAKHAH: “When may one not cut down”, etc. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa stated, for carob trees their forming clusters means their sprouting. “Vines when they produce fluid,” Rebbi Jonah said when they flow with water, as you say (Job 36:27): “He draws the waterdrops that distill rain from their mist.” “Olive trees when they have flower buds”, Rebbi Jonah said, when they bring a quarter [qab]. A quarter [qab] of flower buds or a quarter [qab] of olives? Rebbi Jonah said, that means, flower buds which will yield a quarter [qab] of olives.

HALAKHAH: “White figs”, etc. What are white figs? Stonies. Do they bear every year or only once in three years? They bear every year but their fruits ripen only after three years. How does one know? Rebbi Jonah said, from when he binds a string around them. Samuel stated, one sticks a splint into them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody stores arum”. This takes care of arum. Onions? Rebbi Jonah said, arum and onions follow the same rules. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that a lesser quantity be permitted for onions for they are smoothed.

HALAKHAH: “These are the implements”, etc. Rebbi Jonah said: So is the Mishnah: “These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical to a person suspected of violating the Sabbatical.” If one does not know, what is the rule? Since it was stated “[if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted”, that means that it is permitted if one does not know.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 12:1): “These are the statutes and the rules of law which you will be required to follow in the Land.” In the Land you are required to follow them but not outside the Land. Still we say obligations depending on the Land apply only in the Land, but we might think that obligations not depending on the Land also should apply only in the Land. The verse says (Deut. 11:16–18) “Guard yourselves, lest your heart be seduced … And the Eternal’s rage be inflamed against you, etc. Put these words on your hearts, etc.” Even if you are exiled. (Deut. 11:18) “Put these words on your hearts and your persons.” You have to say, for example tefillin and the study of Torah. Just as tefillin and the study of Torah do not depend on the Land and apply both in the Land and outside the Land, so everything not depending on the Land applies both in the Land and outside the Land.

HALAKHAH: “One works in Syria what is plucked”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu said, so that they should not go and stay there permanently. Then why may he work what is plucked? Since he sees only small gain he will not leave.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Black are forbidden, green are permitted.

HALAKHAH: Originally, vegetable was forbidden at border settlements of the Land of Israel. They decreed that vegetable should be permitted at border settlements of the Land of Israel but it would still be forbidden to import vegetables from outside into the Land. Then they decreed that it was permitted to import vegetables from outside into the Land but it would still be forbidden to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical. Rebbi permitted to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical except for leeks. What did the Sepphorians do? They clothed one specimen in sack and ashes and brought it before Rebbi, saying what sin did this one commit among all vegetables? He permitted it to them.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

HALAKHAH: At the beginning of the chapter you said that one does not eat because of the roots and here you say one does eat because of the roots? Rebbi Phineas said, there they will not ultimately harden; here they will ultimately harden; after they hardened they become part of the stem.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

HALAKHAH: What means “to eat everything commonly eaten”? “One does not oblige anybody to eat mouldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him.What means “to drink everything one commonly drinks”? “ One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce, or sour fish sauce, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much [vinegar] as he wants without second thoughts. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.”

HALAKHAH: Why? So it should be sold cheaply. Why could it not be cheaply sold by the pound? If you say so, he will not treat it as holy.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, not even to the water drawer.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There, he says: “One does not use them to buy water and salt,” and here he says so?

HALAKHAH: It is written (Lev. 25:5) “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap.” That means, not in the way of reapers. Rebbi La said, if it cannot refer to forbidden aftergrowth, take it to refer to permitted aftergrowth. Rebbi Mana said, it is needed for itself when it grew by itself. You should not say that since it grew by itself it is permitted; therefore it was necessary to say that it is forbidden. “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap and the grapes of your wild growth you should not process into wine.” You may not harvest grapes from what is being watched over on the land, but you may gather grapes from what is abandoned. “You should not process into wine,” not in the way of vintners. From here, they said that “one does not cut Sabbatical figs with the fig-knife but he may cut with a dagger. One does not tread grapes in the wine press but he may tread in a trough. One does not work olives in the oil press and with a roller.” Our teachers permitted to use a roller.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time, or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable.” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat. How is that? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. For if it is not so, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl?

HALAKHAH: “Rue, wild amaranth,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the colleagues did not know what סירוגין, חלגלוגות means and “who is superior, in wisdom or in years.” They said, let us go and ask somebody from the house of Rebbi. They went to ask; a servant girl from the house of Rebbi came out and told them: enter in pairs. Each one said, that one should enter before me. As a result, they entered is separate groups. She said to them, why do you enter intermittently? One rabbi was carrying purslain in his overcoat; it fell from him. She said to him: Rabbi, rabbi, your purslain is dispersed.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 25:7): “For your domesticated animals and the wildlife in your land, etc.” Any time a wild animal finds food on the field, your domesticated animal can eat from the house. If it is finished for wildlife on the field, it is finished for the domesticated animal from the house.

HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon. It is written (Lev. 25:12): “From the field you should eat its yield.” Any time you find food on the field, you can eat from the house. If it is finished on the field, it is finished in the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? You caused yourself not to eat.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? The first kind gives taste to the last. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? The last kind gives taste to the first. It is difficult for Rebbi Joshua, does not the first kind gives taste to the last? “Rabban Gamliel says, anything whose kind has disappeared from the fields must be removed from the house.” It was stated: Practice follows his words.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not have here leaves of reeds, only leaves of vines. Leaves of reeds do not have to be removed. We have stated thus: Leaves of reeds, sumac, and carob tree have no removal because their kinds never disappear.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah: (Ex. 23:11) “The destitute of your people should eat including the remainder.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose: (Ex. 23:11) “The destitute of your people should eat with the remainder.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, richpersons may eat from storage. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon: (Ex. 23:11) “The destitute of your people should eat, and the remainder.”

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this?

HALAKHAH: From here they supported the notion that prozbol is from the Torah. But is prozbol from the Torah? When Hillel instituted it, they supported it from words of the Torah.

HALAKHAH: “A predated prozbol is valid” because he diminishes its power, but “postdated it is invalid” because he increases its power. “Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid” because he increases their power, but “postdated they are valid” because he diminishes their power.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, only to his sons. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “only to his sons?” If he has sons, one should return it to his sons. If he has no sons, one should return it to his daughters. That you should not say, since the inheritance of the convert is not settled in the Torah, he should return it to the children. Similarly, if somebody died who was the last of his family and he has no heir except his mother one does not have to repay, but if the debtor repaid the Sages are pleased with him.

HALAKHAH: “Five [persons] cannot give heave,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman understood all of these from here (Ex. 25:2–3): “Speak to the Children of Israel that they should give heave for Me”, excluding the Gentile, “from every man”, excluding the minor, “whose intention is to volunteer”, excluding the deaf-mute and the insane. “The following is the heave you shall accept from them”, except from one who gives heave for what is not his.

HALAKHAH: There, we stated: “One does not give heave from finished for unfinished,” and here you say so? Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of robbing the tribe. What means, because of robbing the tribe? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the exertion. Think about it, if there was a grain of rice? People willingly will pound something. Think about it, if it were in ears? So far goes our question. Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Mana did not say so but he wanted to give heave proportional to the oil and gave only proportional to olives. Think about it, if he gave proportional to the oil? Now he did so, another time he will not do so. In addition, his neighbor will see him and say, this one wants to give a lot but I do not want to give a lot.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have while he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal.

HALAKHAH: “Some of these [rules] are because of the benediction, some because the [persons] are unable to give from the best. The mute, the naked person, and the man who had an emission because of the benediction, the blind and the drunk because they cannot give from the best.”

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure, even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah. (Num. 18:12): “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain.” Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If they assigned, even Rebbi Aqiba agrees. If they did not assign, even the rabbis will agree. But we assume they were silent. Rebbi Aqiba says, if they are silent they do not assign, but the rabbis hold that by being silent they will assign.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.