hillel

MISHNAH: A sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it is a forgotten sheaf.

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

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

MISHNAH: Two sheaves may qualify as forgotten sheaves, three may not. Two heaps of olives or carob may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two plants of hemp may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two berries may qualify as dropped berries, three may not. Two stalks may be gleanings, three may not, following the House of Hillel. About all of these, the House of Shammai say three are for the poor and four for the proprietor.

Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (Deut.24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor, and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor.

Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (Deut.24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor, and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year, the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year, the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

Also, we have stated: It happened that Hillel took for a poor son of a prominent family a horse for his exercise and a slave to serve him. Also, it happened that the people of Galilee brought a Sepphoris pound of meat to an old man every day. Is this not impossible? It was because he did not eat except in company.

MISHNAH: He who buys as seeds or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub on vessels, is free from demay. From Akhzib and further he is free from demay. Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay. Sweet oil, the House of Shammai declare it obligated but the House of Hillel declare it free.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Hillel freed only spikenard oil. Others say in the name of Rebbi Nathan, the House of Hillel obligated oil perfumed with rose or iris.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Hillel freed only spikenard oil. Others say in the name of Rebbi Nathan, the House of Hillel obligated oil perfumed with rose or iris.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

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

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver. The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver. The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place.

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

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

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

Rebbi Mana said, they differ with Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. As he stated: “Ṭevel mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out. Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked: Why can he not crack them? Rebbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not to start out with.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written in the notebook of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales; Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written on the wall of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales: Beans, πίσον, chick peas, mlwt’, krpwnh, climbing beans.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written in the notebook of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales; Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written on the wall of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales: Beans, πίσον, chick peas, mlwt’, krpwnh, climbing beans.

MISHNAH: If someone wants to make his field into separate garden beds of different kinds, the House of Shammai say, three furrows of the ploughshare, and the House of Hillel say, the width of a Sharon yoke. Both criteria are close to one another.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row of five vines, the House of Shammai say that this is a vineyard. But the House of Hillel say, [a planting] is not a vineyard unless it has two rows. Therefore, if somebody sows within four cubits of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctifies one row, but the House of Hillel say, two rows.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row of five vines, the House of Shammai say that this is a vineyard. But the House of Hillel say, [a planting] is not a vineyard unless it has two rows. Therefore, if somebody sows within four cubits of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctifies one row, but the House of Hillel say, two rows.

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

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

“And grapes once they have grown to the size of white beans.” Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, because it is written (Deut. 22:9): “And the produce of the vineyard.” So is the Mishnah: “They do not become sanctified”.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

MISHNAH: Until when may one plough an orchard in the year preceding the Sabbatical? The House of Shammai say, as long as it helps the fruits, the House of Hillel say, until Pentecost. Their words do not differ by much.

Why did we not state this with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? Sometimes there is no rain and no moisture and he would plough only before Pentecost following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, until Pentecost.

Why did we not state this with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? Sometimes there is no rain and no moisture and he would plough only before Pentecost following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, until Pentecost.

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

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

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

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

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Kippar said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Shammua‘ that the House of Shammai say, one waters the leaves and it trickles down to the root, but the House of Hillel say, one waters both on the leaves and on the root.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai one watered with a basket. Rebbi Yaakov bar Zavdi said: Rebbi Isaac ben Tevele watered with a basket. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yudan bar Guria watered with a basket and hoed. Did he intend to work the land? In the days of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba they watered date palms with new brooms and dried branches

MISHNAH: A field that had been cleared of thistles may be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. [A field] improved or fertilized should not be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. A field that was improved, the House of Shammai say one does not eat its produce in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel say one does. The House of Shammai say one does not eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity, but the House of Hillel say in reciprocity and without reciprocity. Rebbi Jehudah says it the other way around; this is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: A field that had been cleared of thistles may be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. [A field] improved or fertilized should not be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. A field that was improved, the House of Shammai say one does not eat its produce in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel say one does. The House of Shammai say one does not eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity, but the House of Hillel say in reciprocity and without reciprocity. Rebbi Jehudah says it the other way around; this is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: A field that had been cleared of thistles may be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. [A field] improved or fertilized should not be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. A field that was improved, the House of Shammai say one does not eat its produce in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel say one does. The House of Shammai say one does not eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity, but the House of Hillel say in reciprocity and without reciprocity. Rebbi Jehudah says it the other way around; this is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: If somebody thins out olive trees, the House of Shammai say he should cut them off, the House of Hillel say he may take out the roots, but they agree that one who levels may only cut off. What is thinning? One or two. Levelling are three adjacent to one another. When has this been said? On his own property. But from another’s property, even one who flattens may take out the roots. If somebody cuts down an olive tree, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. If somebody cuts down a sycamore trunk, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. One does not cut a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical year because that is [agricultural] work. Rebbi Jehudah says, in a normal way it is forbidden but he [may] cut higher than ten hand-breadths or cut it down level with the ground.

: Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel. Can we come to state that Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel? But Rebbi Yose the Galilean worries about agricultural work.

: Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel. Can we come to state that Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel? But Rebbi Yose the Galilean worries about agricultural work.

MISHNAH: When may one not cut down a tree in the Sabbatical year? The House of Shammai say, every tree when it starts. But the House of Hillel say, carob trees when they form clusters, vines when they produce fluid, olive trees when they have flower buds, all other trees when they start. Any tree may be cut down once it[s fruit] has reached the stage of tithes. How much should be on an olive tree so one should not cut it down? A quarter [qab]. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all according to the olive tree.

MISHNAH: If somebody stores arum in the Sabbatical year, Rebbi Meїr says it should not be less than two seah and [in a hole] three hand-breadths deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top. But the Sages say, it should not be less than four qab, one hand-breadth deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top, and should be stored where people step on it. Arum after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, he should settle with the poor. Rebbi Joshua says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, the poor have nothing to settle with him. Arum of the year before the Sabbatical entering the Sabbatical, as well as summer onions and madder growing on choice land, the House of Shammai say, one takes them out with wooden shovels but the House of Hillel say with iron spades. They agree that one takes out madder growing on slopes with iron spades. When may a person buy arum after the end of the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jehudah says, immediately. But the Sages say, after the new [crop] is dominant.

MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted. The seller may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

MISHNAH: Sabbatical produce should not be sold by measure, weight, or count. Figs may not be sold by count nor vegetables by weight. The House of Shammai say, not [vegetables] in bundles. But the House of Hillel say, anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market; for example leeks and milk bud.

MISHNAH: A prozbol does not remit. This is one of the ordinances of Hillel the elder. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:9): “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying, etc.”, he instituted the prozbol. This is the essence of prozbol: I declare before you, judges X and Y at place Z, that I shall collect any debt due me any time I wish. The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.

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

Rebbi Ḥuna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel instituted prozbol. But following him who says tithes] are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person]? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. As we have stated (Deut. 15:2): “this is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “[All its] inhabitants.” In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile. If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel instituted prozbol. But following him who says tithes] are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person]? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. As we have stated (Deut. 15:2): “this is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “[All its] inhabitants.” In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile. If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

MISHNAH: One may not give olives as heave for oil nor grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say they contain their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

There, we have stated: “One may not give heave from impure for pure produce.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If he gave heave from impure for pure produce, what he did is done.” What does Rebbi Yose say here? If there, where all is lost for the Cohanim, he says that what he did is done, here, where not all is lost for the Cohanim, so much more? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say it contains their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.” Rebbi Yose contradicts himself. There he says, what he did is done; here he says, his heave is not heave. There, impurity is infrequent and people will not err to say that one may give heave from the impure on the pure produce. But olives for oil and grapes for wine is frequent; if you say so, one will say that one may give heave of olives for oil and grapes for wine.

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Hillel: We have stated in support of the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” And we have stated: “If one gave oil as heave for table olives, olives for table olives, wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave.” Because he changed his mind! Therefore, if he did not change his mind he has to give a second heave.

It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second [tithe], the House of Hillel say, after one removed first [tithe]. Rebbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rebbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”

It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second [tithe], the House of Hillel say, after one removed first [tithe]. Rebbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rebbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”

It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second [tithe], the House of Hillel say, after one removed first [tithe]. Rebbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rebbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”

Here you say, his heave is heave, but there you say, his heave is not heave! Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, in one case he intended to diminish, in the other to add.

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.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.