halakhah

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and he says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only if he intended to dedicate but he erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes,” etc. Our Mishnah [is said] in case he separated and it is his intention to separate more. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, our Mishnah [is said] if he did not say anything. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Do they disagree? He said to him, if he did not say anything, it is as if it were his intention to separate more.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They treated it following the rules of a worker who does not trust his employer.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Ez. 45:13): “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of wheat, and you shall take sixths from an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.” I could think he may give heave one thirtieth from wheat but one sixtieth from barley. The verse says (Ez. 44:30): “All heave,” that all heaves should be equal. Samuel says, add the sixth to the sixths, it turns out that he gives heave one in forty. “Average, one in fifty.” Rebbi Levi said, it is written (Num. 31:30): “From the half of the Children of Israel take one part in fifty.” All you take at another place shall be like this; just as this is one in fifty, so what you take at another place shall be like this. “And stingy, one in sixty,” as it is written: “And you shall take a sixth from an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.”

HALAKHAH: So far, if he said to him, go and give heave following my intentions. If he knew the intentions of the owner but [the owner] did not tell him: go and give heave following my intentions? Let us hear from the following: “If [the agent] does not know the intentions of the owner;” therefore, if he knows even if he did not tell him, it is as if he had told him.

HALAKHAH: He is praiseworthy relative to whom? Rebbi Huna said, praiseworthy relative to one who estimates heave. Rebbi Ḥinena the son of Rebbi Hillel said, does the Mishnah say so? “He who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, explain it “among the three” and it does not imply anything.

HALAKHAH: From where that they are not lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred, one sixth of what makes dema‘; practice follows him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer [is that] if black figs fell into white ones, one may eat the white ones.

HALAKHAH: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted: There, he says that the lower ones help to lift the upper, and here he says “if the congealed contains”, therefore not the bottom ones. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Cahana: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider this as if he had added intentionally. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider it as a seah lifted from 100. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, one is permitted to add, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. If it congealed and then congealed a second time, in the opinion of Rebbi Assi it is permitted, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, even if there is no remainder, in the opinion of Cahana only if he left a remainder.

HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. It was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave in error,” etc. It is written (Lev. 22:14): “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth.” That it and its fifth make five.

HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: How is this? If he ate vegetable and repaid a dried fig, a dried fig and repaid dates, a blessing should come to him. If he ate first fruits, what can he repay? If he ate grapes, he repays wine, olives he repays oil. If he ate ḥallah, may he repay with produce not yet one-third ripe since produce not yet one-third ripe is subject to ḥallah? If he ate first fruits, may he repay with what is still connected to the ground since first fruits acquire their status while connected to the ground?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. There, we have stated: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If she commits adultery, her death is by burning.

HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one. One dema‘ and one not dema‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema‘. One contains enough for lifting and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “If a vine is planted in the courtyard, one may take an entire bunch, and similarly for pomegranate and water melon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon.” Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes a meal consisting of two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Wine left uncovered must be poured out, even if it is heave. A dish cooked with water that was left uncovered must be thrown out, even if it is heave and certainly if it is profane. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so: “Heave wine that was left uncovered should be poured out, and certainly profane wine.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden to keep wine that was left uncovered; if it was kept and it turned into vinegar by itself it is forbidden. It is forbidden to keep figs and grapes that were pecked at; if they were kept and dried up by themselves they are permitted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinions of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave].

HALAKHAH: “If someone sows heave in error it should be ploughed under;” etc. Would it not be reasonable to switch? They fined him that his field should be worthless under the heave.

HALAKHAH: We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. But ṭevel is mostly profane, First Tithe is mostly profane, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical is infrequent, heave from outside the Land is infrequent, most of dema‘ is profane, First Fruits are infrequent.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This follows Rebbi Simeon. If it follows Rebbi Joḥanan, even a full meal! But since Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice; therefore we have to say that this follows Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “An onion which one added to lentils,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, our Mishnah [in case] after the lentils lost their sap; [then] the lentils shrink it so it will not absorb [any taste]. (As you say, lentils shrink it so it will not absorb.) Similarly, lentils shrink it so it will not give.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, they asked before Rebbi Yannai: What [are the rules] if he put it on the plug of the amphora? He said to them (Job 36:33): “Its neighbor will inform about it.” What means, “its neighbor will inform about it”? Rebbi Yose said, that which we have stated there: “An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits.” As you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora; so here only if the loaf touches the plug. Rebbi Mana said, from this it follows as you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora itself; so here only if the loaf touches the plug itself. His opinion implies, even [if the pitta] is cold. Rebbi Abba said, the problem was about a cold one. But did we not state “hot”? Rav Ḥisda said, that one should not say since the vapor absorbs it should be permitted.

HALAKHAH: Does not the wood spoil repeatedly? Our Mishnah follows him who says that anything that spoils is forbidden. But even according to him who says anything that spoils is permitted, he agrees here that it is forbidden. Why? Fenugreek improves anything into which it falls.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this implies that broken [olives] absorb, release, and absorb again; whole [olives] absorb, release, but do not absorb again. That means, if it is neither improving nor spoiling it is forbidden. The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon says if its taste spoils, it is forbidden. But did Rebbi Simeon not say, if its taste spoils, it is permitted? Following what Rebbi Simeon says, irrigated cabbage preserved with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaiah: “Unsalted pure fish preserved with salted impure fish is forbidden”. But did we not state: “He washes it and it is permitted”? Rebbi Mana said, he who said it is permitted, when he preserved them simultaneously; he who said it is prohibited when he preserved them one after the other. You can understand that this is so, since we have stated “in heave fluid it is forbidden;” [is that] not when he preserved one after the other?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not speak of pickled [food] but of that cooked in water. Pickled is like being hot.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put fig cake or figs into muries”, etc. It was stated: “One puts fig cake or figs into muries in the way one uses spices on condition he not squeeze them to extract their juice. But spices are permitted, for that is what they are used for. A bundle of spices put into one pot and then transferred to another, if their taste is lost they are permitted, otherwise forbidden.”

HALAKHAH: They want to say that they differ about the fifth but Rebbi Joshua agrees about the principal. They differ after the fact, but before the fact Rebbi Joshua agrees. But we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes, but Rebbi Joshua frees it.” Here, when they obtained it after it became ṭevel, there before it became ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for those made from olives and grapes,” even after it became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan, the Mishnah deals with seeds of pears and paradise pears. Rebbi Eleazar said, you can even say the pit of unripe dates if they have not been sucked. But did we not state, “and so bones of sacrifices;” can you say if they have not been sucked? No, about cartilage in wings. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of cartilage in wings.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

HALAKHAH: “They declared a principle for tithes, etc.” It is written (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe all produce of your seed.” I would say, everything is subject to tithes. The verse says, “all produce of your seed,” this includes. Does it include garden seeds that are not eaten? It is written: “produce of your seed,” and it is written: “which your field produces every year.” How is that? Take from among them anything that is food and is guarded.

HALAKHAH: 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.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they start to become red outside. Do all figs become red on the outside? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Marion said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He takes one and puts it somewhere. If that one ripens within 24 hours they are obligated, otherwise they are free.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: If somebody buys a vegetable field in Syria, if this was before the start of the season of tithes, he is obligated. But if it was after the start of the season of tithes, he is free. And here, you say so? Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of a field of green melons or pumpkins. Rebbi Zeïra said, even if you hold this about a general field of vegetables, there still is a limit, only after if grew three twisted leaves.

HALAKHAH: When its peksos is removed, when its šelqoq is removed. “ When he continued removing peksos or šelqoq, it becomes ṭevel only when he finished with all he needs.” When he removed peksos or šelqoq when it was property of the Temple and redeemed it, if he made a large bundle in the field. But if he made a small bundle for the market, it became ṭevel.” Rebbi Ezra asked: The work on the field is not yet finished and you say so? But so it must be: If he made a large bundle in the field and he intends later to make it into small bundles for the market, it became ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Yasa said, where do Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis disagree? If it is ṭevel by their words. But for ṭevel by biblical decree, the rabbis also will agree.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, this is Rebbi Meїr’s opinion since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody. This was asked of those from Rebbi Yannai’s house and they said, we used to give to one another in the fields and ate without putting in order. How can this be? Following him who held that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: When fruits were collected not for use on the Sabbath and the Sabbath started, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Sabbath does not make it ṭevel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, did we not state: “If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey?” We stated about this: Even if he stayed overnight, even if he stayed over the Sabbath! He said to him, when he wants to stay for the Sabbath. You should know that this is so since we have stated about this: “Even if he stayed for the Sabbath on Monday.” Can you have the Sabbath on a Monday? It must be that he wants to stay for the Sabbath; here also if he wants to stay for the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If about a harvesting-basket of figs, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If about oil olives and wine grapes, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing, dried figs intended for pressing. Rebbi Eliezer says, heave creates ṭevel of fruits not completely processed but the Sages say, heave does not create ṭevel of fruits not completely processed.

HALAKHAH: ‘ Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He plucks single berries and eats. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that is what my teacher did. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: If he bit off the minutest amount from a watermelon, he acquired it. Rebbi Jonah asked, does this also hold for a pomegranate?

HALAKHAH: May he himself eat? Rav said, he is forbidden to eat; Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this one is permitted to eat. Rav follows Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. Does Rav follow Rebbi Meїr? Then even his children and domestics should be forbidden! But Rav follows Rebbi, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. As Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: The Sages say, one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh only in its place. Rebbi Jacob ben Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh in its place and in other places. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul objected to Rebbi: Did we not state, “carob pods until he collected them on top of his roof?” He said to him, do not object to me about carobs; carobs are animal feed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said; only on a road, not between a person and his neighbor. Rebbi Jonah said; only olives under an olive tree, carobs under a carob tree, but not olives under a carob tree, carobs under an olive tree.

HALAKHAH: Which courtyard is obligated? It was stated: Rebbi Ismael says, any with a watchman sitting and watching at the door.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One gives him time to hit it a first, second, and third time. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeїra: If he collected the second one during the time allotted for the first, both became ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: Fire creates ṭevel, buying creates ṭevel, salt creates ṭevel, heave creates ṭevel, the Sabbath creates ṭevel, a secure courtyard creates ṭevel, but Rebbi Joḥanan said that buying and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

HALAKHAH: Rav Hamnuna said, if a child covered a harvesting basket for transport to the market, it became ṭevel; in any situation in which the intent of an adult has an effect, the action of a minor has an effect. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Since the intent of an adult does not have an effect until he opens on the market, the action of a minor should not have an effect until he opens on the market! The Mishnah disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

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

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, if he collected two or three modii from it, it comes under the category of vegetable. Also for seeds it is so: If he withheld from it two or three morbiot, it comes under the category of seeds. If one sowed it for seeds it is tithed for the past; if he sowed it as vegetable it is tithed for the future. If he sowed it for both seeds and vegetable, or if he sowed for seeds and then wanted it as vegetable, one may tithe from its seed on vegetable and from vegetable on seeds, on condition that it was collected before the New Year; but if some of it was collected after the New Year, its seed is tithed for the past and its vegetable is tithed at the moment of its being harvested if it was one-third ripe before the New Year. But if it was only ripe one-third after the New Year, both seed and vegetable are tithed for the future.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lifts out plants from his own property”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s. As we have stated there, “He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is the opinion of everybody. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the matter of young plants. What is the difference between wheat and young plants? For wheat, it was the end of processing; for plants it is not the end of processing. Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages in the matter of turnips and radishes because they spoil. Does wheat not also spoil? Wheat admits another threshing floor, these have no other threshing floor.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: A person should not sell his field. Rebbi Simeon permits since he may say to him, I sold mine, go and demand what is yours. If he transgressed and sold, he tithes what he eats but he does not have to tithe for what he sold since we are not responsible for the dishonest.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. There, we have stated: “After-wine before it fermented cannot be bought with money of [Second] Tithe or make a miqweh invalid; after it fermented it may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe and does not make a miqweh invalid.” That Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s since we stated: “He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell Second Tithe.” One does not sell it because holiness is written for it. One does not use it as a pledge because blessing is written about it. “ How may one not sell it? A person should not say to his neighbor, here you have this mina’s worth of Second Tithe, give me 50 zuz profane for it.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Ben Bag Bag says (Deut. 14:26): ‘You shall spend the money for anything you desire.’ It was stated: A person may buy a cow because of its hide, a sheep because of its fleece, and wine because of its pitcher.” Rebbi Zeïra said, that is, if the seller was a private person. But if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah said this: “In a place where wine jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane.” Rebbi Mana said, from this [you conclude that] just as you say there, if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately, so if the buyer was a professional it is as if he bought this separately and that separately.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, or unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he did buy them, he has to eat their worth.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef and Samuel disagreed. One said here as a sale, there as redemption. The other one said here if the seller is present, there if the seller went away. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Samuel, the buy is acquired, that means he is the one who said here as a sale, there as redemption.

HALAKHAH: “Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is, and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state: “If he mashed the fat and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks.

HALAKHAH: How were they lenient for heave? As we have stated: “A Cohen may rub himself with heave oil and bring his daughter’s son by an Israel and roll him on his belly without qualms.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, here they retorted with rabbinic words against the word of the Torah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, for the profit of the Second; maybe the rest will be lost and then at least those held in his hand will be kept for Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Zeïra said, and one has to spell out and say, if those at the bottom are from the Second, those in my hand are taken in their stead. Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected from all around but if he collected in a straight line it is as if he had swept and taken out fists full.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. 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: “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: “That it should not become unusable.” What is “become unusable”? Rebbi Jonah said, it becomes unusable through a ṭevul-yom. You cannot eat it, for he is impure by the word of the Torah; you cannot for he is pure by the word of the Torah. That means, that it should not become unusable.

HALAKHAH: “But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay”; therefore, not if it is certain since one does not deliver certain [tithe] to a vulgar.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for restriction. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restriction”? Rebbi Jonah said, that is what we have stated there: “Oil presses whose doors are open inside but which extend to the outside, under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. One does not slaughter there simple sacrifices as one would inside and one does not redeem Second Tithe as outside. If their doors are open outside but extend to the inside, under the wall and outside is like outside, under the wall and inside, one does not slaughter there simple sacrifices as one would inside and one does not redeem Second Tithe as outside.”

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 14:24): “For you will be unable to take it.” Where do we hold? If far from the Place, it already is written: “If [the distance] will be too much for you.” If near the Place, it already is written (Deut. 14:26): “You shall spend the money.” What does it mean “for you will be unable to take it”? You cannot redeem it, and it is written: “You shall spend the money.”

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The first money, not second money. Only because they objected to him by an argument de minore ad majus, he answered in terms of an argument de minore ad majus.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports Second Tithe produce,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they said only “if somebody transports”; therefore originally it is forbidden. This is about Second Tithe produce, but for produce which is ṭevel for Second Tithe it is originally permitted, following this: Rebbi had produce here and in Batanaia; he fixed the tithes of here there and redeemed them according to the going price there.

HALAKHAH: Is not the fifth of this more than the addition of that one? Rebbi Abin said, there is a difference that he can circumvent and free it from the fifth.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagree. One said, why may one circumvent it? For “blessing” is written about it. The other said, why is it redeemed at a cheap rate? For “blessing” is written about it.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, always the taking up of Second Tithe is its redemption.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, two as equal a dupondius. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He who put aside an as and ate for half its worth, went to another place where the coin is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.”

HALAKHAH: That you should not say, since people do not usually act like this, one has to say “profane”.

HALAKHAH: Zenon asked Rebbi: How should we state, fourth-year vineyard or fourth-year orchard? He said to them, go out and ask Rebbi Isaac the Elder with whom I checked the entire Mishnah. He said to them, the first ones fourth-year vineyard, the second ones fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Zeïra complained about the old people from the time of Rebbi Isaac the Elder, that they did not check all Mishnaiot with him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hila said, at the start they made wine in purity for Temple libations and grapes were rare. They decreed that it had to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. They used to distribute it to relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances, and a small quantity adorned the market.

HALAKHAH: To redeem for a tetradrachma [means] he buys for himself for a tetradrachma. “He has only the cost of harvesting” including the cost of removing the pedicles. Rebbi Hoshaia took three wholesalers [?] and redeemed on their word.

HALAKHAH: Is it not ṭevel? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that ṭevel is called holy.

HALAKHAH: Could he not make the declaration on the first day of Passover? So he should have something to eat for the holiday. Could he not make the declaration in the morning? While he is commanded to eat.

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.” I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,” this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one whips because of their ḥallah as a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say one volume of an olive of all of them. It is different since the category of “leavened” applies to all of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted. There, he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another.”

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

HALAKHAH: A woman asked Rebbi Mana: Since I want to make iṭry in my kneading-trough, may I take from it so that it should be free from ḥallah? He said to her, why not? He went to ask his father. He said to him, it is forbidden; maybe she would change her mind to use it as bread dough.

HALAKHAH: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, ḥallah might be profane, I would say it is permitted to wait with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth”.

HALAKHAH: “Foreign produce,” etc. It is written (Num. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you.” There you are obligated, you are not obligated outside the Land. It was stated: These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah are: Foreign produce imported into the Land, Rebbi Eliezer declares it free but Rebbi Aqiba declares it obligated. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (Num. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread,” not foreign bread. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba? (Num. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you.” There you are obligated, both for produce of the Land and foreign produce.”

HALAKHAH: How is this? Less that four mil he should make it in purity, four mil he sould make single qabim, or four mil he should make it in purity, more than four mil he sould make single qabim? Let us hear from the following, since Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, for example Caesarea. Is Caesarea not four mil? That means, four mil he should make it in purity, more than four mil he sould make single qabim. Rebbi Ammi instructed in Kefar Sammai to make a large dough in impurity. Is that not less than four mil? Since a brook interrupts it is as if there were four mil. This teaching follows Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim. It was a large dough and it would have been easier for him to walk a distance than to make it single qabim.

HALAKHAH: “He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order.” He destroyed himself by eating and exposed himself to punishment; he put others in order since they eat and unload [their sin] on him. Some Tannaїm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since anyhow he ate. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.

HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rebbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra] in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

HALAKHAH: And why is it stated twice? Rebbi Huna, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: One for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abba and the colleagues. The colleagues say, one for smoothing, one for one third. Rebbi Abba explains: At Ḥallah for smoothing, at Peah for one third.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between this and a dough of annona? Is the latter not obligated for ḥallah? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it. But here it depends on the latter’s opinion.

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

HALAKHAH: “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind. They gave to one woman who minds the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour], she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree?

HALAKHAH: Should one have stated “rice” but not “heave”? If we had stated “rice” but not “heave”, we would have said that rice does not combine because it is not of that kind, but heave, which is of that kind, should combine. It is necessary to state “heave.” If we had stated “heave” but not “rice”, we would have said that heave does not combine because it is not dragged in, but rice, which is dragged in, should combine. It is necessary to state “rice” and “heave”.

HALAKHAH: What means “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food? Let us hear from the following: “If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity.” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They decided about these and turned them back to their places of origin. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this is impossible. One may not eat it lest people say we saw impure heave being eaten. One may not burn it lest people say we saw pure heave being burned. One may not return it to its place of origin lest people say we saw heave being exported from the Land. What to do? He lets it lie until Passover eve and burns it.