harvested

Mary said to Jesus, "Whom are your disciples like?" He said, "They're like little children living in a field which isn't theirs. When the owners of the field come, they'll say, 'Give our field back to us.' They'll strip naked in front of them to let them have it and give them their field. "So I say that if the owner of the house realizes the bandit is coming, they'll watch out beforehand and won't let the bandit break into the house of their domain and steal their possessions. You, then, watch out for the world! Prepare to defend yourself so that the bandits don't attack you, because what you're expecting will come. May there be a wise person among you! "When the fruit ripened, the reaper came quickly, sickle in hand, and harvested it. Anyone who has ears to hear should hear!"

Jesus said, "Grapes aren't harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, because they don't produce fruit. [A person who's good] brings good things out of their treasure, and a person who's [evil] brings evil things out of their evil treasure. They say evil things because their heart is full of evil."

Therefore I say unto you, [ye] children of the light, that the time is at hand, and the harvest is ripe that sinners should be harvested in judgment. And to many the Judge shall arise as one who is kind, and shall impute to them their own works. But when He shall be at hand, a sign shall be given to the elect, who keep the law of My Father.

They said a general principle concerning peah: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, and is harvested all at the same time, and is brought in for storage, is subject to the law of pe'ah. Grain and beans are in this category.

The following divide a field for peah: a stream, a pool, a private road, a public road, a public path, a private path in constant use in summer and the rainy season, fallow land, a plowed field and a different seed. One who harvested for animal fodder, [the plot] serves divides, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: it does not stop for peah unless it is plowed.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested. If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole. If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole.

If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested. If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole. If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole.

If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested. If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole. If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole.

If robbers harvested half and the owner the other half, he gives peah from what he has harvested. If he harvested half and sold the other half, then the purchaser must give peah for the whole. If he harvested half and dedicated the other half, then he who redeems it from the Temple treasurer must give peah for the whole.

A non-Jew who harvested his field and then converted, he is exempt from [leaving] gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. Rabbi Judah makes him liable to leave the forgotten sheaf, since he becomes liable for the forgotten sheaf at the time of their binding.

What are gleanings? That which falls down at the time of harvesting. If while he was harvesting, he harvested a handful, or plucked a fistful, and then a thorn pricked him, and what he had in his hand fell to the ground, it still belongs to the owner. [That which drops from] inside the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the poor, but [that which falls from] the back of the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the owner. [That which falls from] the top of the hand or sickle: Rabbi Ishmael says: to the poor; But Rabbi Akiva says: to the owner.

They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes. And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages. But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food.

An etrog is similar in three ways to [the fruit of an ordinary] tree, and in one way to a vegetable. It is similar to a tree in respect of orlah, fourth year plantings, and [the law of] the seventh year; And it is similar to a vegetable in one thing: that its tithing goes according to the time it is harvested, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is similar to a tree in all ways.

Six things the inhabitants of Jericho did: against three they [the sages] protested, and against three [they] did not protest. And these are those against which they did not protest: They grafted palm trees all day [on the eve of Pesah]; They ‘wrapped up’ the Shema; And they harvested and stacked [their produce] before [the bringing of] the ‘omer. And [for these] they did not protest. And these are those against which they did protest: They permitted [for use] the small branches [of sycamore trees] belonging to sacred property, And they ate the fallen fruit from beneath [trees] on Shabbat, and they gave pe’ah from vegetables; And [for these] they did protest.

“Then the officers shall address the people saying: ‘Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home’” (Deuteronomy 20:5). It is the same whether he built a house for straw, a house for cattle, a house for wood, or a storehouse; It is the same whether he built, purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it?’” (vs.. It is the same whether he planted a vineyard or planted five fruit-trees and even of five different species; It is the same whether he planted, bent or grafted it, or whether he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has betrothed a woman [but who has not yet married her]?’” (vs. It is the same whether he had betrothed a virgin or a widow, or even a shomeret yavam, or even if a man heard that his brother had died in battle, he returns home. All these hear the priest’s words concerning the battles of war and return home, and they supply water and food and repair the roads.

If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.

Wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye are subject to hallah. And they are reckoned together. They are forbidden [to be eaten] as new grain before the omer. And they may not be harvested before Pesah. If they had taken root before the omer, the omer permits them; And if not, they are forbidden until the next year's omer.

Rebbi Yose bar Abun investigated: If you say that two (stars) present a doubt, if someone saw two stars on Friday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, he also saw two stars on Saturday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and he would be guilty for the later work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and he would be guilty for the first work. If someone saw two stars on Friday night and harvested about (the volume of) half a fig, in the morning he harvested about half a fig, and he saw two stars on Saturday night and harvested about half a fig, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and one would combine daytime with Saturday night and he would be guilty for his last work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and one would combine daytime with Friday night and he would be guilty for his first work.

Rebbi Yose bar Abun investigated: If you say that two (stars) present a doubt, if someone saw two stars on Friday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, he also saw two stars on Saturday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and he would be guilty for the later work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and he would be guilty for the first work. If someone saw two stars on Friday night and harvested about (the volume of) half a fig, in the morning he harvested about half a fig, and he saw two stars on Saturday night and harvested about half a fig, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and one would combine daytime with Saturday night and he would be guilty for his last work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and one would combine daytime with Friday night and he would be guilty for his first work.

Rebbi Yose bar Abun investigated: If you say that two (stars) present a doubt, if someone saw two stars on Friday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, he also saw two stars on Saturday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and he would be guilty for the later work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and he would be guilty for the first work. If someone saw two stars on Friday night and harvested about (the volume of) half a fig, in the morning he harvested about half a fig, and he saw two stars on Saturday night and harvested about half a fig, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and one would combine daytime with Saturday night and he would be guilty for his last work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and one would combine daytime with Friday night and he would be guilty for his first work.

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

MISHNAH: They established a principle for peah: Everything that is food, is treated as private property, grows from the earth, is harvested at one time, and is stored, is subject to peah. Grain and legumes are included. And among trees sumac and carob, walnut and almond, vine and pomegranate, olive and date palm are subject to peah.

Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

It was stated: Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field, so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.

It was stated: Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field, so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.

MISHNAH: An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, Rebbi Jehudah says it separates. For all hills subject to weeding, even if cattle can not pass by with their implements, he gives one peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

If the treasurer cut half of the half but did not finish to harvest the rest before somebody redeemed everything, he gives from the harvest for what was harvested but all that was harvested in the possession of the Temple is already exempted.

If the treasurer cut half of the half but did not finish to harvest the rest before somebody redeemed everything, he gives from the harvest for what was harvested but all that was harvested in the possession of the Temple is already exempted.

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah, from the fourth year, but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe, one for those which are not fully ripe. Rebbi Yose said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

HALAKHAH: If he harvested half a field in company [with his brother] and then they split up, he does not give from his own part either for the initial harvest or for the final one. When they changed their minds and after splitting formed a company and harvested half a field, and then separated again, he can give from his part at the end for his partner’s part at the end, but not from his part at the start for his partner’s part at the start.

HALAKHAH: If he harvested half a field in company [with his brother] and then they split up, he does not give from his own part either for the initial harvest or for the final one. When they changed their minds and after splitting formed a company and harvested half a field, and then separated again, he can give from his part at the end for his partner’s part at the end, but not from his part at the start for his partner’s part at the start.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For five reasons one should give peah only at the end of one’s field, because of robbing the poor, because of idling the poor, because of cheats, because of bad impression, and because the Torah said (Lev. 19:9): “Do not finish off the corner of your field.” Because of robbing the poor, that no man should see a free hour and say to his poor relative: Come, and take this peah for yourself. Because of idling the poor, that the poor should not sit around, watch the entire day, and say: Now he is giving peah, now he is giving peah, but rather they should go, collect on another field, and come at the moment of finishing. Because of the cheats, that one should not say: I already gave, and then he chooses the good and brings out the bad. Because of bad impression, that the passers-by should not say: Look, this man harvested his field and did not leave peah for the poor. And because the Torah said: “Do not finish off the corner of your field.”

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who harvested his field and later converted is free from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Rebbi Jehudah obligates him for forgotten sheaves because that applies only at the time of binding the sheaves.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said it is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it for Rebbi Aqiba (after smoothing) [in a disagreement], or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

MISHNAH: : A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain that is still standing, if it can be cut together with standing grain, it belongs to the owner, otherwise it is for the poor. An ear of gleanings that was mixed up in a stack of grain, he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him. Rebbi Eliezer said, how can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him.

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

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

Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.

Two poor people entrusted two se’ah of barley to Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr; he sowed them and harvested them. They came to him and wanted to take their barley. He said to them, bring camels and donkeys to carry their barley.

They gave the owner occupied with his work the status of a farmhand. If the owner kept field vegetables [growing] in his vineyard, they are forbidden to him and to others. If a farmhand kept field vegetables [growing] in the vineyard, they are forbidden to him but are permitted to everybody else. This is difficult. If they are forbidden to him, they should be forbidden to everybody. If they are permitted to everybody else, they should be permitted to him. It must follow Rebbi Simeon who says that nobody may sanctify anything that is not his own property. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that nobody may sanctify anything that is not his own property, he agrees here that it is forbidden to him if another person harvested it; but if he himself harvested, it is forbidden to him and to everybody else.

They gave the owner occupied with his work the status of a farmhand. If the owner kept field vegetables [growing] in his vineyard, they are forbidden to him and to others. If a farmhand kept field vegetables [growing] in the vineyard, they are forbidden to him but are permitted to everybody else. This is difficult. If they are forbidden to him, they should be forbidden to everybody. If they are permitted to everybody else, they should be permitted to him. It must follow Rebbi Simeon who says that nobody may sanctify anything that is not his own property. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that nobody may sanctify anything that is not his own property, he agrees here that it is forbidden to him if another person harvested it; but if he himself harvested, it is forbidden to him and to everybody else.

If one sowed it for seeds before the Sabbatical New Year, then in the Sabbatical year both seeds and vegetables are permitted. If one sowed it as vegetable before the Sabbatical New Year, then in the Sabbatical year both seeds and vegetables are forbidden. If one sowed it both for seeds and vegetable before the Sabbatical New Year, then in the Sabbatical year clearly seeds are permitted. What is the status of vegetables? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “forbidden”, Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated “permitted”. He who says “permitted” follows the word of the orah. He who says “forbidden”, because of the bad impression. Rebbi Simeon bar Zevida asked before Rebbi Yose: Then it should be forbidden even to use it to feed one’s animals, because of the bad impression. He said to him, one should not give to his son or to his agent, nor should he harvest in a row. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if a hole was torn out it is permitted. Even according to him who says it is forbidden, if he harvested and found vegetable in it, it is permitted. Similarly, when a man came carrying ten bundles of Lybian [beans] as tithe to Rebbi Jeremiah, he said that this should not be done; do not harvest more than what is needed for the pan.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Does this mean, the first third for the past, the second third for the future? He said to him, the first third is slow in coming; afterwards it grows rapidly. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra learned that from a competent sharecropper. Samuel said, sixty days for six leaves, six days for sixty leaves. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from the appearance of leaves to the bud fifty days, from the bud to the wind-fall fifty days, from wind-fall to figs fifty days. Rebbi says, all of them by forty days.” If somebody harvested figs and does not know when their buds were formed, Rebbi Jonah said he counts a hundred days backwards; if the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ falls in this period he knows when they budded.

MISHNAH: One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.

MISHNAH: One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

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: 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.

MISHNAH: In the afternoon of the holiday they made the declaration. How was the declaration? (Deut. 26:13) “I removed the holy produce from the house,” is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is ḥallah. “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it. (Deut. 26:14) “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning;” therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity;” therefore if he separtated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it. (Deut. 26:15) “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven,” we did what You decided for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our forefathers, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits. Because of this, they said that Israel persons and Mamzerim may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rebbi Meïr says, also excluding Cohanim or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

MISHNAH: In the afternoon of the holiday they made the declaration. How was the declaration? (Deut. 26:13) “I removed the holy produce from the house,” is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is ḥallah. “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it. (Deut. 26:14) “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning;” therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity;” therefore if he separtated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it. (Deut. 26:15) “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven,” we did what You decided for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our forefathers, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits. Because of this, they said that Israel persons and Mamzerim may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rebbi Meïr says, also excluding Cohanim or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said the additional growth is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it either for Rebbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

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

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

Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe.

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, 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.

MISHNAH: If a sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim became mixed with [other] saplings, one should not harvest. If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred on condition that he did not have the intention to harvest. Rebbi Yose says, he may intend to harvest; it will be lifted by one in two hundred.

But did we not state: “One should not harvest;” after the fact. And we have stated: “If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the first case if he harvested three; in the second case if he harvested all of them.

But did we not state: “One should not harvest;” after the fact. And we have stated: “If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the first case if he harvested three; in the second case if he harvested all of them.

But did we not state: “One should not harvest;” after the fact. And we have stated: “If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the first case if he harvested three; in the second case if he harvested all of them.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: If somebody sold him a field with its standing crop, may the buyer bring First Fruits? He said to him, why not? That is, when it is moist; even when it is dry? He said to him, even dry, even harvested. Then even wheat grain; do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits?

MISHNAH: A citron follows the rules of trees in three aspects and those of vegetables in one. It follows the rules of trees in ‘orlah, the fourth year, and the Sabbatical, and those for vegetables in that the moment it is harvested determines its tithe, the words of Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Eliezer says, it follows the rules of trees in all respects.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine? Do not trays divide and trays combine? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

It was stated: One experiments neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her; he is liable.

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

“They gave peah from vegetables.” “They only gave for beets and leeks since these are harvested once. Rebbi Yose said, also cabbage.” It happened that the son of Ben Meviyayin gave peah of vegetables to the poor. His father came and found them standing at the door of the garden plot. He told them, put down what is in your hands, they put down what was in their hands. He gave them double from what had been tithed. Not that he was a miser, but he was concerned about the words of the Sages. Once the rabbis needed contributions; they sent to him Rebbi Aqiba and another rabbi with him. When they came to enter at his place they heard the voice of a lad saying to him, what shall we buy for you today? He said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. They left him and went away. After all people had (acquired merit) [contributed], they came to him. He said to them, why did you not come to me first, as you were used to? They told him, we already came but heard the voice of a lad saying to you, what shall we buy for you today? You said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. He said, you know what was between me and the lad; do you know what is between me and my Creator? Nevertheless, go and tell her to give you a modius of denars. They went and told her. She said to them, what did he say to you, heaped or flat? They answered her, he said it vaguely. She told them, I am giving you heaped. If he said so, I filled it. If not, I shall account for the excess from my dowry. When her husband heard this, he doubled her ketubaḥ.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion because of this: “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting. Rebbi Yose said, since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

From where the translation? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel: They read in the Scroll of the Torah, that is the reading. Explained, that is the translation. Making sense, these are the accents. And understood the reading, this is the Masora, and some say, these are the decisions, and some say, these are the starts of verses. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel: Even an expert in the Torah like Ezra should not pronounce with his mouth and read as it is said about Baruch: And from his mouth he would read all these words to me and I was writing on a scroll with ink. But was it not stated, “it happened that Rebbi Meïr was in Essia where there was no Esther scroll written in Hebrew, when he wrote it by heart and read it. One does not infer from emergency situations. But there are those who say that he wrote two. He wrote the first by heart, and copied the second one from the first one, put away the first and read from the second.” Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, I can write the entire Torah from memory. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, I can write the entire Torah for two minas. How would he do it? He buys flax seed for two minas, sowed and harvested it, made ropes to catch deer and wrote the entire Torah on their hides. Rebbi heard it and said, happy is (the people) [the generation] to which you belong.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira said, it only says “if his wine was in the cistern.” Therefore to start is forbidden. Where do we hold? If it was time to harvest the grapes and he did not harvest, he caused the damage to himself. If it was not time for the grape harvest, what could he have done? But we must hold that the time for the grape harvest arrived and he thought that he could finish but he could not. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai harvested his vineyard on the holiday. Everybody saw him and harvested after him. In another year he left it and it dried up. They are learning the wrong behavior but are not learning the correct behavior.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira said, it only says “if his wine was in the cistern.” Therefore to start is forbidden. Where do we hold? If it was time to harvest the grapes and he did not harvest, he caused the damage to himself. If it was not time for the grape harvest, what could he have done? But we must hold that the time for the grape harvest arrived and he thought that he could finish but he could not. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai harvested his vineyard on the holiday. Everybody saw him and harvested after him. In another year he left it and it dried up. They are learning the wrong behavior but are not learning the correct behavior.

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?