jo

How does Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina explain “In view of all this”? Since they accepted [the obligations] with good grace, the verse credits it to them as if they had accepted it voluntarily. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “more than your forefathers?” He explains it for the future since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your forefathers inherited the land of seven peoples, but you will in the future inherit the land of ten peoples. The three others are (Gen. 15:19) “the Qenites, the Qenizites and the Qadmonites.” Rebbi Jehudah said, [these are] Arabia, Salmaia and Nabataea. Rebbi Simeon says, Asia, Spain, and Damascus. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, Asia, Cartagena, and Thrace. Rebbi says, Edom, Moab, and the best of Ammon. “More than your forefathers”: Your forefathers, even though they were redeemed, were later subjugated again. But you when you are redeemed will not be subjugated again. What is the reason? (Jer. 30:6) “Inquire and see whether a male gives birth.” Just as a male cannot give birth so you, after you are redeemed, will not be subjugated again.

Rebbi Zeïra went to the hot springs of Pella and found himself outside of the “Babylonian date palms”. He sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked the two sons of Rebbi Eviatar from Dama who said to him, Cohanim are used to go there. The Cohanim asked Rebbi Joḥanan about that strip around Naveh. Rebbi Joḥanan said to them in the name of Rebbi Onias from Ḥauran: Cohanim are used to go there up to Edrei, and in the region of Bostra up to the orchard.

Rebbi Zeïra went to the hot springs of Pella and found himself outside of the “Babylonian date palms”. He sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked the two sons of Rebbi Eviatar from Dama who said to him, Cohanim are used to go there. The Cohanim asked Rebbi Joḥanan about that strip around Naveh. Rebbi Joḥanan said to them in the name of Rebbi Onias from Ḥauran: Cohanim are used to go there up to Edrei, and in the region of Bostra up to the orchard.

Rebbi Simon ben Laqish went to Bostra; they came to him and said to him: Select for us a man as preacher, judge, scribe, reader; one who will do everything we need. He selected a Babylonian and said to him, I have a good place for you. He went to Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, from Babylonia to Babylonia. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said from Babylonia to Babylonia, that means one who buys there is not obligated. But is it not forbidden to go to Tyre, and if one buys there is he not obligated? It was found stated: A sign for Ammon, Moab, and the Land of Egypt: There are two regions. From the first one eats and it may be worked, from the other one eats and it may not be worked. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to refer to (Deut. 4:43): “Beṣer in the prairie”. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is Beṣer Bostra?

Rebbi Simon ben Laqish went to Bostra; they came to him and said to him: Select for us a man as preacher, judge, scribe, reader; one who will do everything we need. He selected a Babylonian and said to him, I have a good place for you. He went to Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, from Babylonia to Babylonia. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said from Babylonia to Babylonia, that means one who buys there is not obligated. But is it not forbidden to go to Tyre, and if one buys there is he not obligated? It was found stated: A sign for Ammon, Moab, and the Land of Egypt: There are two regions. From the first one eats and it may be worked, from the other one eats and it may not be worked. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to refer to (Deut. 4:43): “Beṣer in the prairie”. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is Beṣer Bostra?

Rebbi Simon ben Laqish went to Bostra; they came to him and said to him: Select for us a man as preacher, judge, scribe, reader; one who will do everything we need. He selected a Babylonian and said to him, I have a good place for you. He went to Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, from Babylonia to Babylonia. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said from Babylonia to Babylonia, that means one who buys there is not obligated. But is it not forbidden to go to Tyre, and if one buys there is he not obligated? It was found stated: A sign for Ammon, Moab, and the Land of Egypt: There are two regions. From the first one eats and it may be worked, from the other one eats and it may not be worked. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to refer to (Deut. 4:43): “Beṣer in the prairie”. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is Beṣer Bostra?

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An onion taken out of the ground and replanted once it darkened has to be tithed completely. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An onion taken out of the ground and replanted once it developed new roots has to be tithed completely. There is no difference whether it was taken out in the Sabbatical year and replanted in the year after or was taken out in the Sabbatical year.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An onion taken out of the ground and replanted once it darkened has to be tithed completely. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An onion taken out of the ground and replanted once it developed new roots has to be tithed completely. There is no difference whether it was taken out in the Sabbatical year and replanted in the year after or was taken out in the Sabbatical year.

“ Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden. What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”

The leaves removed from vegetables one puts on the roof and they dry up by themselves. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Wine until Passover, oil until Pentecost, dried figs until Purim. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Dates until Ḥanukkah.

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

It was stated: “And all those which remained from the sixth year into the Sabbatical belong to the sixth except for nasturtium which is like a vegetable.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no [rule that] “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but [they belong] to the Sabbatical. But did we not state: “Calamint, hyssop, and thyme he brought to the courtyard, (but) if it was from the second year into the third they belong to the third; from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth?” Here, you count the past [year], there the coming! Rebbi Yose said, in the third and sixth years, even though there is no second tithe, there are tithes; in the Sabbatical there is no tithe whatsoever. But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but they belong to the Sabbatical? There it is in the possession of the landowners, here it is in the possession of the poor. He prefers one which is certain to two which are possible.

It was stated: “And all those which remained from the sixth year into the Sabbatical belong to the sixth except for nasturtium which is like a vegetable.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no [rule that] “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but [they belong] to the Sabbatical. But did we not state: “Calamint, hyssop, and thyme he brought to the courtyard, (but) if it was from the second year into the third they belong to the third; from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth?” Here, you count the past [year], there the coming! Rebbi Yose said, in the third and sixth years, even though there is no second tithe, there are tithes; in the Sabbatical there is no tithe whatsoever. But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but they belong to the Sabbatical? There it is in the possession of the landowners, here it is in the possession of the poor. He prefers one which is certain to two which are possible.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name.

In the first case, you say “the roses should be taken out”, in the second case “all is subject to removal”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is from two [different] Tannaïm. Rebbi Yose said, I can explain those roses by two conditions: “If new roses are preserved in old oil”, Sabbatical roses preserved in oil of the sixth year; “old in new”, Sabbatical roses preserved in eighth year’s [oil].

We understand “one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans and animals” that it is forbidden to boil them to a pulp. We have stated: If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as wood and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood? Where do we hold? If he gave him the money and afterwards took it up, he paid for wood. If he took it up and afterwards gave him the money, he paid for food. We must hold that he gave him the money and afterwards took it up; this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that [transfer of] money does not mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for food. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that [transfer of] money does mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for wood.

We understand “one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans and animals” that it is forbidden to boil them to a pulp. We have stated: If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as wood and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood? Where do we hold? If he gave him the money and afterwards took it up, he paid for wood. If he took it up and afterwards gave him the money, he paid for food. We must hold that he gave him the money and afterwards took it up; this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that [transfer of] money does not mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for food. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that [transfer of] money does mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for wood.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

It was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who saidthat washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life. Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai to grind in a mill following Rebbi Simeon, and to work with a roller, following the rabbis. Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai not to take the rent of their oil presses in wine but in money; he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah.

Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai to grind in a mill following Rebbi Simeon, and to work with a roller, following the rabbis. Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai not to take the rent of their oil presses in wine but in money; he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money.

Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Bostra. He saw them sprinkling at that Aphrodite. He said to them, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan told him in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Nothing public is forbidden.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Bostra. He saw them sprinkling at that Aphrodite. He said to them, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan told him in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Nothing public is forbidden.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Ḥiqoq. He saw them dealing with mustard plants. One of these fell down and he [a townsman] did not take it up. He [R. Simeon] said, if somebody will bring a mustard plant to me I shall rule following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, Rebbi Onias from Hauran ruled in Bet Hauran following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan rose and publicly proclaimed following the rabbis here and there.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

They said in the name of four elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: The arguments of Rav seem to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Judan, are the rules different for a wick and an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

“From Bet Ḥoron to the Sea is one domain.” Without regions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, still there is Mountain, Lowland, and Valley. From Bet Ḥoron to Emmaus it is Mountain, from Emmaus to Lydda Lowland, from Lydda to the Sea Valley. Then there should be four stated? They are adjacent.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not have here leaves of reeds, only leaves of vines. Leaves of reeds do not have to be removed. We have stated thus: Leaves of reeds, sumac, and carob tree have no removal because their kinds never disappear.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with permitted produce. For that we stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, it should be given to those who eat it. Since Rebbi Eliezer is a Shammaiite, did we state: One does eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity and without reciprocity, following the House of Shammai? For that, the rabbis answer him that the sinner should not be rewarded? They answered him according to his argument: Against your argument, when you say that it should be given to those who eat it, a sinner should not be rewarded.

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this?

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this?

Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end.

Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: If they sanctified it and afterwards the witnesses turned out to be perjured, it still is sanctified. Rebbi Assi stayed with Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi and asked him: Did you hear this from your father? He said, yes. Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not cross-examine the witnesses of the New Moon.

Who notifies? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the signatories of the document. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, they treated the statement of the signatories of a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined by the court? There, it is about those who would say: We did not sign at all. But here they say, on this we signed, on that we did not sign.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are really invalid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he only counts from the time of writing. But did we not state: “A prozbol is valid, whether predated or postdated, but it only counts from the time of writing”? If you assert this for financial documents, what is the difference between a prozbol and a financial document?

Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower, or the borrower but not the lender. If he has no real estate but one who owes him has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody trades in promises, there you say the Sages are displeased with him. But sometimes you say only that one gives him up to “Him who made pay”.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who gives a ring as surety and wants to get out of the deal, may get out of the deal. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: A gold coin? He said to him, a ring. What is the difference between a gold coin and a ring? Gold coins are exchanged, a ring remains as it is.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Should not their action be proof of their intentions? As we have stated there: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew. We also have stated there: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that [his animals’] feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” When thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.

Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rebbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is that (Deut. 24:1,3): “he writes for her”, for her personally? Rebbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

Who states “the deaf-mute?” Not Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sons of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada were all deaf-mutes and all purities in Jerusalem were handled by them. They said to him, because purities do not need thought and may be produced by a deaf-mute, an insane, and a minor. But heaves and tithes need thought and do not become invalidated by absent-mindedness.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Thought is not written in regard to them, only watching.

The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who said to a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand”, and this Levite went and made it heave of the tithe for other produce but the Israel went and gave it to another Levite, [the first one] has only a complaint on him. That is, if he handed it over before [the first Levite] made it [heave]. But not if this one made it before that one handed it over. Parallel to this Mishnah: “If he terminated: if he terminated before he gave heave, his heave is not heave. But if he terminated after he gave heave, his heave is heave.” All this follows: From the moment he said, you have a kor of tithe in my hand, he made him his agent and it turns out that he was tithing with the permission of the Israel. One may also explain it following Rebbi Yose, as “Rebbi Yose said: If the owner gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: There, we stated: “One does not give heave from finished for unfinished,” and here you say so? Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of robbing the tribe. What means, because of robbing the tribe? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the exertion. Think about it, if there was a grain of rice? People willingly will pound something. Think about it, if it were in ears? So far goes our question. Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Mana did not say so but he wanted to give heave proportional to the oil and gave only proportional to olives. Think about it, if he gave proportional to the oil? Now he did so, another time he will not do so. In addition, his neighbor will see him and say, this one wants to give a lot but I do not want to give a lot.

Ḥizqiah said, they mentioned only olives for oil and grapes for wine, hence not for any other produce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only olives for oil and grapes for wine but also any other produce. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even immediately.

Ḥizqiah said, they mentioned only olives for oil and grapes for wine, hence not for any other produce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only olives for oil and grapes for wine but also any other produce. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even immediately.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have while he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal.

Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and ownerless property all have the same rule. Did one not already state everything? Thus you have to understand the Mishnah: [One may] not [give] from produce one third ripe for produce not yet one third ripe, and when he gave heave, it is not heave. For Ḥizqiah it is a point of contention, for Rebbi Joḥanan it is everybody’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure, even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself”.

Since we stated: “If there were two fig-cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain,” etc.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons or squash.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

There, we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice], or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.