iyya

Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things, I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Lev. 11:26,27,28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return.

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

[It happened that] the daughter of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya punched holes into figs so that the fellows should not eat them but (his) [her] father Rebbi Ḥiyya ate from them. Is that not forbidden? He knew of the matter. Is it not forbidden anyhow, have we not stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden for I say, they ate from the place of a pecking hole.” She had been watching.

[It happened that] the daughter of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya punched holes into figs so that the fellows should not eat them but (his) [her] father Rebbi Ḥiyya ate from them. Is that not forbidden? He knew of the matter. Is it not forbidden anyhow, have we not stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden for I say, they ate from the place of a pecking hole.” She had been watching.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

The spiced wine of Bar Yudani was left uncovered. He went and asked the rabbis who told him, it is forbidden. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered! The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Titus: One which consists of one third ground spices.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills. Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra. As the master of the ruling, could he have asked?

Rav and Samuel both say, the earth is permitted to be broken apart before it, but no vessel is permitted to be broken apart before it. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Great and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi were sitting in a certain house when murmurs went around. They said, is it possible that it will be seen here? It was seen. They said, praised be He Who chose the Sages who said, the earth is permitted to be broken apart before it, but no vessel is permitted to be broken apart before it.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: A watermelon with pecking marks whose inside is rotten is forbidden. A person carried a sweet melon with pecking marks. He let ten people eat from it and they died. He covered it with spittle and it broke apart.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

There, we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.

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

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

That inner part, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One fires it with dry branches.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: A quarter [log] of fish sauce in two seah of fish sauce. But the sauce of an impure fish never can save! Rebbi Abbahu said, I computed that close to 200. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya, a quarter [log] of fish sauce in two seah of fish and fish sauce. A case came before Rebbi Joshia and he instructed accordingly.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon, Rebbi Birai, Rebbi Levi bar Plautus, an elder in the name of Rebbi: 61 are forbidden, 62 are permitted. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada testified before us: 60. He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I shall declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I [said] what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty. He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi; he asked: Are there 50?

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon, Rebbi Birai, Rebbi Levi bar Plautus, an elder in the name of Rebbi: 61 are forbidden, 62 are permitted. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada testified before us: 60. He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I shall declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I [said] what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty. He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi; he asked: Are there 50?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Vegetables, shells, and water are counted. Rebbi Zeїra said, even if the inside is forbidden. Rav Huna said, the shells of the forbidden help the permitted. Rebbi Zeїra: That is, if he cooked them in their shells, cooked with cooked. But if he cooked shelled eggs with unshelled in water, or unshelled with shelled, cooked with uncooked, that needs a different measure.

Rebbi Zeїra went to visit Rebbi Ḥiyya, the son of Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya. He found him sitting. He said, they taught only for yolk, but in the egg white it is permitted. He thought that he had heard it from his ancestor. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both egg white and yolk are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Yolk is forbidden, egg white permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said, he who says yolk is forbidden if it is found at the male part of the yolk; this applies even to yolk, but only if it is found on its male part since from there the development of the chick starts.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: That log of oil of the leper, must he give it back or not? If you say he must give it back, and he did not, he transgresses by default. If you say he need not give it back, and he did, he transgresses by excess Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so, but Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. That log of oil of the leper belongs to those [consecrated foods] which can be permitted and you say he must give it back? That means, he must give back and if he did not, he transgresses by default.

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

“One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.”

“One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.”

“ If cattle of a Cohen was fed at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after [the Cohen] left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this happened to me; by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Jonathan ben Akhmai did teach me: The daughter of a Cohen standing Sabbath eve with a light filled with oil for burning, adds some profane oil and lights. Rebbi Zeïra said, what is the nature of this? He said to him, he was a great personality, well versed in the Mishnah. Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin explained this to Rabbi and he appointed him rabbi.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Are truffles and mushrooms obligated for tithes? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him in the name of Rebbi Simai, it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe all produce of your seed.” Anything which is sown and grows. This excludes truffles and mushrooms which grow but are not sown. Rebbi Jonah offers the language: Because the earth extrudes them.

HALAKHAH: What means ביחילו? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it comes alive, as you say (Zach. 11:8): “And their souls were too much for me.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they start to become red outside. Do all figs become red on the outside? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Marion said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He takes one and puts it somewhere. If that one ripens within 24 hours they are obligated, otherwise they are free.

“Dates when they start to become bloated.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when the indentation is straightened out. Rebbi Jonah asked: How do we hold? If the indentation is straightened out, it is wind-fall! If the pit can be separated, it is fully ripe! The rabbis from Caesarea say, when they are ready to be eaten.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: From when are olives subject to tithes? When the quickly growing summer fruit first ripens. If no quickly growing summer fruit ripens, when white figs first ripen. If there are no white figs to ripen, when the second batch is seen in the muqẓeh. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, when the first really white white figs ripen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this refers only to white figs of the same place.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: From when are olives subject to tithes? When the quickly growing summer fruit first ripens. If no quickly growing summer fruit ripens, when white figs first ripen. If there are no white figs to ripen, when the second batch is seen in the muqẓeh. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, when the first really white white figs ripen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this refers only to white figs of the same place.

“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree and I will eat my fill from yours,’ he who eats his fill is free and he who eats a fixed number is obligated.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Can a person not eat one by one with permission and be free? He said to him, yes. Then why is he obligated here? He said to him, when he takes them together. If he takes them together, even he who eats his fill should be obligated! Is he not forbidden because of barter? Rebbi Shammai said, there is no barter since this man only wanted to make him hungry that he should eat.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abin: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. There, we have stated: “If he put it in a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv, lower than ten hand-breadths it is an eruv.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, make an eruv for me! But here, he says I shall tithe for you. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall make an eruv for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.

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

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The laborer may eat the first bunch of grapes. It was stated, the last bunch. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Hila: If he put it in the basket it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, that needs to be said if he harvests and another transports. But if he harvests and transports originally he eats because of local usage. At the end he eats because of “ the laborers eat when they go from one row to the next and when they return to the winepress, and the donkey until it is unloaded.”

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

Are they not pressed in the houses? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it where most people press in the fields. Rebbi Zeїra asked: Is it not recognizable whether it is pressed or not? Rebbi Saul said, sometime it jumps from under the roller, then it is pressed and looks as if not pressed. Sometimes a foot squeezes it, then it is not pressed and looks like pressed. Rebbi Eleazar said, that is, at a place where most people are not pressing in the fields. But at a place where most people are pressing in the fields, those who pressed and the minority who will press in the future are added together.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: What does Rebbi Jehudah add to the words of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba? He said to him, nothing.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A bunch of grapes which he squeezed into a cup became ṭevel; into a tamḥui it did not become ṭevel.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah speaks of a harvesting basket of figs. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, even a branch. Rebbi Eleazar ben Antigonos in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yannai: Explain it for a fig tree reserved for the Sabbath. Example: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Ammi were sitting together when somebody passed by with a harvesting basket of figs. He said to him, [we want] to buy! He answered, the Sabbath basket is not for sale.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only about a Sabbath basket. Maybe Rebbi Jehudah spoke about someone who collected a harvesting basket full to send to his friend, that he cared for it as if it were a Sabbath basket?

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

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

“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow, he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.

Rebbi Mana said, they taught only “for seeds”; therefore, for eating he is free. Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; he is obligated for seeds or for consumption because this is their threshing floor. Rebbi Ḥanina said, because he would transfer it from second to the poor or from the poor to second.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: He sowed in a flower pot without a hole and made a hole? He said to him, now it has a hole.

So is the Mishnah: The seeds on the stem of arum. Some woman had heave purslain on a block. They fell into a garden and sprouted. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan who permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, is this not the Mishnah: “And these may be eaten if their father was heave?” He said to him, Babylonian, when you cleared a potsherd for yourself, you found a pearl! You said, is that not the Mishnah!

A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange. If he had dangerous coins: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

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

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated (Lev. 27:27): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value;” just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated (Lev. 27:27): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value;” just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth.

Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them. If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it. The Mishnah breaks: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada inquired before Rebbi Mana: If it became impure by derivative impurity and he redeemed it, then it became impure in original impurity; do we say that if the original money is still there he redeems with it, otherwise he cannot redeem with it, and one is whipped neither for the first nor the second monies? Rebbi Jonah asked, is it the same for him who buys? Rebbi Mana said, the enclosure “grabs” and the buyer “grabs”. What was said for the enclosure was said for the buyer.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, tithe did not acquire it; if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, tithe acquired it. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, one may lift by 101, if after he sealed the top with clay any one sanctifies. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he gives heave from one for all, if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he has to give heave from each single one.”

“If he said, a quartarius of profane is in this barrel, the barrel is profane.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah says so, “Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.”

It was stated: “Abba Ḥilfai the small-town man said, when has this been said? For certain [produce], but for demay whether it was expensive and became cheap or was cheap and became expensive, he may sell it cheaply.” Why? Is it because it always may be sold cheaply or because it may not be returned to its place? What is the difference? If later it rose in price again at its place. If you say, because it may not be returned to its place, did it not increase in value? If you say, because it always may be sold cheaply also in this case it can be sold cheaply. Like this: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was in Rome and he saw them redeem there Nicolaos dates from here at the price here. He said, who taught them? Ḥilfai the small-town man taught them.

Rebbi Mana had oil which he brought down to Acco. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, if your oil there at the parapet is still there, it is your time that you should redeem it for [there] it is not worth six minas.

Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but here you have it and give it to her, if he wants to take it back, he may take it back.” The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me. ‘Bring it to her, give it to her, acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may take it back; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back.” Rebbi says, in any of these cases he may not take it back except if he says, “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but give it to her.” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. Rebbi Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is divorced and not divorced. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were at the same theme, it is a bill of divorce.

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

Rebbi Zeïra asked, why do we not enumerate all for what they are: As we have stated: “A dedicated tree one colors with vermilion, houses of idol worship one blackens with charcoal, a leprous house one indicates by burned ashes, the place of a slain person by blood, the place where the neck of a calf was broken by a stone enclosure.” Is one not afraid that it will be said it is a tree which sheds its fruits? Did we not state: “If a tree sheds its fruits, one colors it red with vermilion, loads it with stones, and frightens it into producing.” They said, there that it should not loosen its fruits, here that it should start to produce. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not teach “a line”, like the vermilion line as remembrance of the altar, as we have stated there: “A vermilion line is like a belt in the middle to distinguish between upper and lower blood.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one writes on it with vermilion: “dedicated.”

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr, is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside.

Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (2Chr. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe. A person asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like (Is. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zuṭra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like (Is. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zuṭra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Patora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Patora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

There, we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites, here if it was mixed. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there: “One may not bring cereal offerings, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow Rebbi Joḥanan!

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

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

Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written (Deut. 22:9): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread”. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all [kinds], only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread”.

It is obvious: For the rabbis, that “less than a third” is not dragged in concerning the matter of tithes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rebbi Eleazar, is it dragged in in the matter of ḥallah like a rice dough? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for ḥallah? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for ḥallah and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses are two for ḥallah and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for ḥallah and tithes.

Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea and he said to me, two students stated this.

The Mishnah said: “if the shepherds eat from it.” Maybe sometimes the shepherds will not eat from it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any he made into cracknels. We also have stated so: “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected it is free.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Ammi in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, even if he formed it as rolls. But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it?” Explain it if he made it from the start [thinking] that the shepherds should not eat from it.

: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota says in the name of Rebbi Joshua, he made everything unusable. But Rebbi Aqiba says in the latter’s name, he made unusable only the place where he touched.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when do they disagree? When it was prepared for impurity and after that was kneaded, when fruit juices clearly do prepare. But if it was kneaded and after that only prepared, fruit juices are not clear to prepare. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is everybody’s opinion. Even though Rebbi Aqiba says there that fruit juices have no clear connection with impurity, he agrees here that fruit juices are clearly for ḥallah.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Nothing is clear except the seven fluids. Rebbi Yose asked: Was this said for ḥallah or for impurity? If you say for ḥallah, so much more for impurity. If you say for impurity, then not for ḥallah. It is obvious for Rebbi Jonah that it had been said for ḥallah, so much more for impurity. Rebbi Jonah sticks to his opinion, for Rebbi Jonah stated from Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi stated in Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s name, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Rebbi Ṭarphon said, it is stated here ḥallah, and it is stated there, a ḥallah of oil cake. Since the ḥallah mentioned there is prepared with oil, so the ḥallah prepared here must be prepared with oil. And oil is one of the seven fluids.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ḥallah and for washing one’s hands, he has to walk up to four mil. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way.

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

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it is never subject to ḥallah unless it contain the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. In this case, since the bran was removed and then put in again, it is not the way dough is made.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah, but the Sages say it is no ḥallah.” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start? Here we deal with the start. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rebbi Aqiba.

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

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

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

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?

There, we have stated: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are exempted because they were potentially obligated but exempted. A Jew and a Gentile made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt.

Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten? Do I read for this (Lev. 2:3): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read (Num. 18:28) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”.

They said, Rebbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question. What is the difference between him who takes from itself for itself and him who takes from it for another place? When he takes from itself for itself, since this ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear. When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear. Rebbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear.

But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

“ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.