jehudah

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gedilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Hillel, how may one proceed at the end of the Sabbath if someone was sitting and eating on Sabbath, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You say, he reserves it until after the meal and connects everything to it. What can you say? Shall he recite the benediction for the wine, Grace has precedence. Shall he recite Grace, the light has precedence. Shall he recite for the light, Havdalah has precedence. We may infer from the following: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel do not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Jehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light. What should he do following the opinion of the House of Hillel? He should say Grace first, afterwards he should recite the benediction over wine and afterwards Havdalah.

“Works of kindness.” That means with his person. But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield.

In its written (Gen. 37:2): “And Joseph reported their evil slander to their father.” What did he say? Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meir said, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal. Rebbi Jehudah said, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, they are infatuated with local girls. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, (Prov. 16:11) “Balance and scales of justice are the Eternal’s; all weight-stones are His work. “What did he say, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal? The Holy One, praise to Him, said: So I testify for them that they first slaughter and then eat, (Gen. 37:31) “they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat into the blood.” What did he say, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves? (Ps. 105:17) “Joseph was sold as a slave.” What did he say, they are infatuated with local girls? Lo, a she-bear will attack you, (Gen. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Joseph, etc.”

In its written (Gen. 37:2): “And Joseph reported their evil slander to their father.” What did he say? Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meir said, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal. Rebbi Jehudah said, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, they are infatuated with local girls. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, (Prov. 16:11) “Balance and scales of justice are the Eternal’s; all weight-stones are His work. “What did he say, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal? The Holy One, praise to Him, said: So I testify for them that they first slaughter and then eat, (Gen. 37:31) “they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat into the blood.” What did he say, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves? (Ps. 105:17) “Joseph was sold as a slave.” What did he say, they are infatuated with local girls? Lo, a she-bear will attack you, (Gen. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Joseph, etc.”

MISHNAH: One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle. Rebbi Simeon says, only on condition that he give the measure at the end. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he left one stalk standing he adds to it for peah; otherwise, he gives only as abandoned property.

It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:7): “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, moist dates are free from peah because the first among them does not wait for the last one. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah seems to say what is correct, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, because they all need moisture at the same time.

It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:7): “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, moist dates are free from peah because the first among them does not wait for the last one. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah seems to say what is correct, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, because they all need moisture at the same time.

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra questioned: Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it was one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah, would Rebbi Meïr say that if he started before it was one-third ripe, even if he continued after it is one-third ripe he will be freed from collecting, forgotten sheaves, and peah?

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

They wanted to say: What Rebbi Jehudah talks about is one who stands on one bank and cannot cut on the other bank, but if he stands in the middle and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated in disagreement: “If he was standing in the middle and harvesting on both banks, it separates; on one bank it does not separate.”

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

“He who thins out gives peah for what is left.” It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:10): Rebbi Jehudah said: When has this been said? If he thins for sale, but if he thins for his own use he gives from the remnant for everything. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means, if he sowed thickly in order to thin later. But if he sowed thickly without intention to thin later, not only if he uses it for himself but even for the market he gives from the remnant for everything.

MISHNAH: He who sells tree trunks in his field gives peah from each single one. Rebbi Jehudah says, when? If the owner of the field did not retain anything, but if he retained his field, he gives peah for all of them.

HALAKHAH: So far when he started harvesting beforehand; even if he did not start to harvest? Let us understand it from the following (Mishnah Ḥulin 11:2): “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Is there a difference? There, both if he started to shear or if he did not start to shear, and here there will be no difference whether he started harvesting beforehand or did not start beforehand.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired with guaranteed property, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Madon was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah said it well, what is the reason of the Rabbis? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It is written (Deut. 24:19): “If you forget a sheaf on the field.” If you forget the standing grain. What applies to forgetting while it is standing also applies to forgetting sheaves, but what does not apply to forgetting while it is standing, does not apply to forgetting sheaves.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah said it well, what is the reason of the Rabbis? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It is written (Deut. 24:19): “If you forget a sheaf on the field.” If you forget the standing grain. What applies to forgetting while it is standing also applies to forgetting sheaves, but what does not apply to forgetting while it is standing, does not apply to forgetting sheaves.

Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The tops are for the poor, viz., white ones. The bottom ones are for the owner, viz., green ones. Rebbi Meïr says, everything is for the poor because gleanings in doubt are gleanings, since no threshing will end without some green ones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who waters his field before a poor person had entered it, if his potential loss is greater than the poor man’s, it is permitted, but if the poor man’s loss is greater than his, it is prohibited. Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases he deposits them on the fence and the poor man comes and takes what is his.

The reasoning of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted: There, he says that just as he prunes for himself, so he prunes for the poor; but here he says thus! There, they caused it for themselves since they did not come, but here they came.

MISHNAH: If he switches with the poor, what he receives is exempt but what the poor get is obligated. If two persons received a field as sharecroppers, one gives his part and his tithes of the poor to the other one, and vice-versa. He who receives a field to harvest is barred from its gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this so? When he received it for one-half, one third, or one quarter; but if he told him, one third of what you will harvest will be yours, he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah but not the tithes of the poor.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: A father and his son, a man and his relative, two brothers, two associates redeem Second Tithe for one another and give tithe of the poor to one another. Rebbi Jehudah said, a curse should come upon him who gives tithe of the poor to his father. He said, why? If they were both poor!

HALAKHAH: A sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you harvest and you forget.” If the owner forgot but the workers did not, it is not a forgotten sheaf since it is written: “When you are harvesting and you forget.” Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Even if donkey drivers passing by on the road saw a sheaf forgotten by the workers but not by the owner, it is not a forgotten sheaf unless everybody forgot it.

Rebbi Jehudah said, they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because betrothed she is his wife and married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones, now you want to roll old ones over us! The new ones, after nissuïn, the old ones before nissuïn, when she was married in the second ceremony.

The great Rebbi Jehudah said: If a water canal crossed the entire field, if he has to lift the plough on one side and put it on the other side, it is not considered one row, otherwise it is considered one row. If he cut half a row and came back the next day it is considered a row, when he sat down to eat, when he sat down to sleep, when his friend called him, when it got dark.

MISHNAH: Grain cut for animal feed or to bind sheaves, and similarly garlic used to bind as well as bundles of garlic and onions are not subject to “forgotten sheaves.” Anything hidden in the ground, such as luf, garlic, and onions, Rebbi Jehudah says, they are not subject to “forgotten sheaves”, but the Sages say, they are subject to “forgotten sheaves.”

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

MISHNAH: What are dropped berries? Anything that drops during vintage. If he was gathering grapes, cut off the bunch, it got mixed up in the leaves, fell to the ground and scattered, that belongs to the proprietor. He who puts a basket under the vine while he is gathering grapes robs the poor, and about him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.” What is a gleaning of grapes? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has either shoulder or dropping it belongs to the proprietor, in case of doubt it belongs to the poor. A gleaning on a cut branch, if it can be cut off together with a bunch it belongs to the proprietor, otherwise to the poor. An isolated berry, Rebbi Jehudah says, it is considered a bunch, but the sages say, a gleaning.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Only if they all touch the palm of his hand. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, it happened that they weighed a gleaning in Sepphoris and it was seven pounds? Rebbi Ḥinena said, if they put it on a board, every grape must touch the board.

Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Is. 17:6): “There will remain in it gleanings as when one plucks olives, two or three kernels.” More than that is a grape.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, it happened that Rebbi Jehudah said to his son in Sikhnin: Go and bring us dried figs from the barrel. He went and put his hand into the barrel, found it full of honey and said: Father, it is a barrel of honey. He said to him, put your hands deep into it and you will bring up the dried figs. It happened that Rebbi Yose said to his son in Sepphoris: Go and bring us dried figs from the upper floor. He went and found that honey was floating on the upper floor. Rebbi Ḥananiah was a dealer in bee’s honey; he also had honey obtained by roasting. After a time they passed by him. He said to them, in order not to trick you, you should know that the honey that I gave you was from roasting. They said, from that one we want more because it is good for our purposes. He set aside its value and built with it the House of Study of Sepphoris.

MISHNAH: He who thins out vines, just as he thins out his own so he thins out those of the poor, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, he may do so for his own but he is not empowered for those of the poor.

HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner. Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller. Rebbi Immi said to him: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him!

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that Rebbi Jehudah changed his opinion. There he says, in both cases he takes them, deposits them on the fence and the poor comes and takes what is his; but here he says so! Because he squeezees them, they will produce more the next year. I should say also here, because he fertilizes it, it will produce more the next year. He said to him, it happens frequently that he will sow vegetables and shelter them from the poor.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

Ḥeipha asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard of quantities.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property, so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property, so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

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 Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

MISHNAH: When is everybody permitted to take gleanings of grain? After the second wave of seekers is gone. Single grapes and gleanings of grapes, after the poor have come to the vineyard and gone. Olives after the second wave of rainfall. Rebbi Jehudah said, are there not people who do not harvest their olives until after the second wave of rainfall? Rather when a poor man goes out and does not collect more than the value of four assarii.

HALAKHAH: Should the poor be trustworthy if they say: It was given me as grain and I turned it into flour, it was given me as grain and I turned it into bread? It is clear to him that he is trustworthy. Even if everybody knew that most people store gleanings, he is not trustworthy. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, at a place where one presses gleanings of grapes, the poor shall be trusted when they say, this wine is from gleanings of grapes.” Similarly, at a place where one presses picked olives, the poor should be trusted when they say, this oil is from picked olives.

MISHNAH: The easy ones for demay are shitin, lotus fruit, the fruit of the service tree, white figs, and sycamore figs, fallen dates, fennel, and capers. Also in Judea sumac, vinegar, and coriander. Rebbi Jehudah says, all shitin are free except those from a tree bearing fruit twice a year, all lotus fruit are free except lotus fruit from Shiqmanah, and all sycamore fruits are free except those cracked open.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “ Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “ Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

It was stated: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithes and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If a priest marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything, if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

It was stated: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithes and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If a priest marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything, if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

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.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: From whom did this man buy? If from a Jew it is demay, from a Gentile certain. Explain that if the trader was a Gentile and both Jew and Gentile deliver to him, it is demay. Rav Hoshaia objected, does not the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan? As it was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, they only mentioned pomegranates from Badan and grain from Geba because they must be tithed as certain everywhere.” What are we talking about? If he bought from a Jew, can it be pronounced certain? But we must deal with a Gentile. Hence, all other things are tithed as demay. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, we deal with certain produce from a Jew. Explain it that there was a powerful overseer of markets who exerted pressure to sell at low prices, and they permitted him to sell ṭevel and let the buyer beware for himself.

MISHNAH: He who takes it upon himself to be trustworthy gives tithes for what he eats, what he sells, and what he buys, and he is not a guest of an am haäreẓ. Rebbi Jehudah said, he who is a guest of an am haäreẓ may be trustworthy. They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, private persons never refrained from being guests of private persons of their acquaintance. Nevertheless, they used to put in order all their produce in their own houses.

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

MISHNAH: He who accepts upon himself to be a ḥaver will not sell to the am haäreẓ wet or dry and will not buy wet from him, is not guest of an am haäreẓ and does not have him as a guest in his clothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, moreover he should not raise animals of the flock, should not overstep bounds by vows and laughter, should not defile himself with the dead, and be a regular in the house of study. They said to him, these are not included.

.What is the difference between them? Rebbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe? Maybe it was said on the principle of ṭevel for produce of the Gentile? Since we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice.

MISHNAH: He who gives to his mother-in-law tithes what he gives to her and what he receives from her because she is suspect to switch spoiled food. Rebbi Jehudah says, she wants to put her daughter in a good light and is ashamed before her son-in-law. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce.

MISHNAH: He who gives to his mother-in-law tithes what he gives to her and what he receives from her because she is suspect to switch spoiled food. Rebbi Jehudah says, she wants to put her daughter in a good light and is ashamed before her son-in-law. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

Does it mean his mother-in-law after the first or the second marriage ceremony? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce.” Is there a difference between first and second marriage ceremony? Here also, there is no difference between first and second marriage ceremony.

MISHNAH: If someone enters a town, does not know anybody there, and asks: Who is trustworthy here, who tithes? If somebody told him, I am not trustworthy, but Mr. X is trustworthy, he may be believed. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here? If the seller said, the one who sent you to me, they may be believed even though they act as if they would do reciprocal favors to each other. Donkey drivers who entered a town and one of them said, my produce is new, my colleague’s is old, mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are to be believed.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because of the lives of the townspeople. What is the reason of the rabbis? They can provision themselves in another town.

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.

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: He who buys from the baker may tithe from the warm on the cold and from the cold on the warm, even from many types, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah forbids it; I say that the wheat of yesterday was from one source and today’s is from another. Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

MISHNAH: He who buys from a merchant tithes from each type separately, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, from one for everything. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about him who buys from a store with a monopoly that he tithes from each single loaf.