jo

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.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [Between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. [Between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, and one does not have to mention that [between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: [Between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. [Between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, and one does not have to mention that [between] Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. From this you infer that [between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof. But have we not stated: “If workers gave heave from a vat, their heave is not heave. But if the vat was small or if the owners or others stir it, their heave is heave.” Because others stir it, but if others do not stir it, their heave would not be heave! What is this? One statement for wine, the other for oil. But are not wine and oil the same? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not.

“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaїm state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaїm state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.

If he said, the heave of this and that heap should be in this one; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar asked: If a seah of heave fell into a heap and he said, the heave of this heap is contained in it, does the heave of the heap end at that seah?

What if the heave of two heaps [was given] together? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

That is, if most of the heap was put in order. If most of the heap was not put in order, there is disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan. As Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality. Since it was his intention to give, each single grain of wheat was labelled at its place. Some want to explain following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, that he cannot separate either for itself or for another place. This parallels the following: If there were before him two heaps and from each of them he took part of heave or tithes, may he take heave or tithe from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

That is, if most of the heap was put in order. If most of the heap was not put in order, there is disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan. As Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality. Since it was his intention to give, each single grain of wheat was labelled at its place. Some want to explain following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, that he cannot separate either for itself or for another place. This parallels the following: If there were before him two heaps and from each of them he took part of heave or tithes, may he take heave or tithe from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to free his heap. But if he did not do it in order to free his heap, even one on one.

Cahana said, “in his usual way.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, even one for one. But did we not state, “in his usual way”? That he should not give less. Rebbi Eleazar said, in his usual way of measurement, but if he wants to add, even one for one.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

How far does a man free his ṭevel by the word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan instructed: One in a hundred like heave of the tithe. Rebbi Joḥanan asked him, from whom did you hear this? He said, from arguments of the colleagues I understood this, although Rebbi Yannai said, even one in a thousand. Rebbi Mana said, there is no measure since it is written (Deut. 18:4): “The first of your grain, cider, and oil;” any amount.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as dema‘.

In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is simple. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is ṭevel for tithes. Therefore, he must declare: “The excess he should make heave of the tithe for another place.” In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, it is difficult. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is ṭevel for everything. But we have stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe,” he should make it heave of the tithe for another place. Hizkiah holds with what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe for another place.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer [is that] if black figs fell into white ones, one may eat the white ones.

“ “White ones lift the black.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer answered Rebbi Joshua thus: Do white ones lift the black? His words say, when it is known what fell in they lift one another. Cahana said, they do not lift. In the opinion of Cahana, what is the difference between Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba? When he had known but forgot. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua he lifts, in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he does not lift. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is only if one black one fell into two white ones, that it may be disregarded in a plurality. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Would it not be reasonable [to say] into three so that if one of them is lost there still will be two? He said to him, that is also my opinion.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

If there were 20 figs before him and one [fig] fell into them and was not recognizable among them and then one of them was lost; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this doubt disappears in the plurality; Rebbi Joḥanan said, all become subject to proof. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he gave heave for them from another place or added to them from another place the doubt would disappear in the plurality.

If there were 20 figs before him and one [fig] fell into them and was not recognizable among them and then one of them was lost; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this doubt disappears in the plurality; Rebbi Joḥanan said, all become subject to proof. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he gave heave for them from another place or added to them from another place the doubt would disappear in the plurality.

Is Rebbi Eliezer stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient in this case? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is [a disagreement of] Tannaїm: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted, if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

HALAKHAH: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted: There, he says that the lower ones help to lift the upper, and here he says “if the congealed contains”, therefore not the bottom ones. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Cahana: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider this as if he had added intentionally. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider it as a seah lifted from 100. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, one is permitted to add, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. If it congealed and then congealed a second time, in the opinion of Rebbi Assi it is permitted, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, even if there is no remainder, in the opinion of Cahana only if he left a remainder.

HALAKHAH: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted: There, he says that the lower ones help to lift the upper, and here he says “if the congealed contains”, therefore not the bottom ones. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Cahana: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider this as if he had added intentionally. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider it as a seah lifted from 100. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, one is permitted to add, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. If it congealed and then congealed a second time, in the opinion of Rebbi Assi it is permitted, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, even if there is no remainder, in the opinion of Cahana only if he left a remainder.

There, we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

There, we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

There, we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

There, we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

We understand that when pure it must be left to rot, but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, should it not be burned? Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food]. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen.

We understand that when pure it must be left to rot, but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, should it not be burned? Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food]. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100 or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant?

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100 or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant?

It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally. But did we not state: “If it contained 40 seah, he added a seah and removed a seah, it is in order.” How far? Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, up to the larger part of the miqweh. And here you say so? There it was a plurality, you add to it and it is in order. But here, every single seah needs 100 seah. Rebbi Yose said, this means that anything becoming insignificant by biblical law is activated by its own kind to become forbidden.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things, if one added against them in error, it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah: “if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about heave, he comes to tell you about all other things.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done, so one has a duty to instruct about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn, always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so?

Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth. Rebbi Zeїra said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who swallows heave vinegar is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who chews a wheat grain of heave is whipped. It was stated: He who chews a wheat grain of heave pays the principal but not the fifth; Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: The Sages agree with Rebbi about him who swallows heave vinegar after such ṭevel, that he pays principal and fifth because vinegar refreshes the spirit.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who swallows heave vinegar is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who chews a wheat grain of heave is whipped. It was stated: He who chews a wheat grain of heave pays the principal but not the fifth; Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: The Sages agree with Rebbi about him who swallows heave vinegar after such ṭevel, that he pays principal and fifth because vinegar refreshes the spirit.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would hold with Rebbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a Cohen; but for something he is not obligated to give to a Cohen, even Rebbi will agree since that is a Mishnah: “If he separated the redemption of a first-born donkey and then it died, Rebbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation as for the five tetradrachmas of the [human] first-born; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.” Rebbi Eliezer will agree about first-born donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, that he sanctified it when he separated it.

HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes? But we deal with growth of peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes? But we deal with growth of peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. There, we have stated: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. There, we have stated: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of a living animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three derivations which are clear from the Torah (Deut. 26:3): “You shall come to the Cohen who will be in those days.” Is there a Cohen now who is not a Cohen after some time? Who is that? That is one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of one who had performed ḥaliẓah, that his work is valid. Rav said, (Deut. 33:11) “You will want the work of his hands,” that the work of everybody who is of the descendants of Levi is valid.

In Rav’s opinion, only a sacrificing Cohen. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, any Cohen. In Rav’s opinion, only for sacrifices in the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even holy food in the countryside. In the rabbis’ opinion, only during the existence of the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even today.

In Rav’s opinion, only a sacrificing Cohen. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, any Cohen. In Rav’s opinion, only for sacrifices in the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even holy food in the countryside. In the rabbis’ opinion, only during the existence of the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even today.

In Rav’s opinion, only a sacrificing Cohen. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, any Cohen. In Rav’s opinion, only for sacrifices in the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even holy food in the countryside. In the rabbis’ opinion, only during the existence of the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even today.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, where do they disagree? Concerning slave and wife. But in the other cases, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the Mishnah says so: “or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat,” but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.

Abba bar Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat.” You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animal.

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

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Wine left uncovered must be poured out, even if it is heave. A dish cooked with water that was left uncovered must be thrown out, even if it is heave and certainly if it is profane. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so: “Heave wine that was left uncovered should be poured out, and certainly profane wine.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden to keep wine that was left uncovered; if it was kept and it turned into vinegar by itself it is forbidden. It is forbidden to keep figs and grapes that were pecked at; if they were kept and dried up by themselves they are permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: What [is the status of] cooked wine that was left uncovered? He said to them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum, and you are asking me? Is that not [applicable to] cooked wine? He went to ask Rebbi Isaac who told him, it is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu [then] remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: What [is the status of] cooked wine that was left uncovered? He said to them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum, and you are asking me? Is that not [applicable to] cooked wine? He went to ask Rebbi Isaac who told him, it is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu [then] remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

It was stated: “ Water on the ground forty seah. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rebbi Jehudah and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering.”

It was stated: “ Water on the ground forty seah. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rebbi Jehudah and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering.”

It was stated: “ Water on the ground forty seah. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rebbi Jehudah and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering.”

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose; therefore, following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rebbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon taught that. And if you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rebbi Assi: All suspended [heave] we are dealing with here is suspended [heave] about which he has no intention of asking. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Ila and Rebbi Zeїra, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first amphora follows Rebbi Yose, the second both Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it not disagree with Rebbi Meїr? He said to him, we may say it follows neither Rebbi Meїr nor Rebbi Yose since we find that Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Zeїri: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. I said to him, because he considers suspended [heave] from the words of the Torah. He said to me, do I not explain that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwellings? For we have stated: “From Gentiles’ dwellings one suspends; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, as we have stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn it during the morning hours? Explain it if he was lazy and did not burn it [then]. Know that this is so, for he did not state “during the morning hours.” Is that not because he was lazy and did not burn [then]? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it if impurity was created at that time, and you cannot infer anything.

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

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