jo

Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “One may exchange Second Tithe for a blank, the words of Rebbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid it.” What is Rebbi Dosa’s reason? (Deut. 14:25) “You should bundle the money;” something which is bundled together, or which has a form and is current because of its form. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Yose that one exchanges [Second] Tithe for a pound of silver. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have said just as he said silver, so he said gold. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have taught to exclude broken pots and baskets from which one could get a pound of silver.

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

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

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An animal of Second Tithe in Jerusalem following Rebbi Meїr is free from the rules of firstlings; following Rebbi Jehudah it is under the rules of firstlings. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If it gave birth to a firstling, must its sacred parts be brought onto the altar? Did not its sacred parts fall under the rules of Second Tithe and you would hide it from being eaten? He said to him, if somebody bought meat as meat of desire, would not [the holiness of] Second Tithe have fallen on its sacred parts, would you not hide it from being eaten? He said to him, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Yose said, we were not saying so but the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively. What is the difference between them? If it gave birth to a firstling and he dedicated it as well-being sacrifice. For him who says, the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively, it is offered. For him who says, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it, and it is not offered.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.” ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: He who whispers puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: with hand or vessel. In what do they differ? Whether it is repulsive. For him who says with hand or vessel, it is repulsive. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, it is not repulsive. Rebbi Jonah said, they differ about Second Tithe. For him who says with hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, Second Tithe is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, is all that is permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and all that is forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? Did we not state: A woman may douse her son with wine because of sweat, but this is forbidden with heave? Heave and Second Tithe are the same! How is that? Only that he not do it in the way he is used to do it on weekdays.

“If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, it follows Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.” The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rebbi Jehudah? Rebbi Jehudah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

HALAKHAH: How were they lenient for heave? As we have stated: “A Cohen may rub himself with heave oil and bring his daughter’s son by an Israel and roll him on his belly without qualms.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, here they retorted with rabbinic words against the word of the Torah.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is by proportion.” He explains it, up to the size of olives. “What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together in proportion.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: The Mishnah comes up so: What is mixed and what is taken out in fists full in proprtion.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is by proportion.” He explains it, up to the size of olives. “What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together in proportion.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: The Mishnah comes up so: What is mixed and what is taken out in fists full in proprtion.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

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

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

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

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

Rebbi Ḥanania said: Rebbi took early ripe green melons for the government and fixed their Second Tithe in each peduncle. He considered them as if cut. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, they were whole and you say cut? Rebbi Jonah said, that is correct! If two people were partners in a green melon, one having one part and the other two, can he say, take your part and I shall take mine? But for the two together it is sold more dearly; here also together it is sold more dearly. Like this: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi commanded those Southerners who were disregarding it. Bar Qappara lifted them and before him cut them into little pieces. He said to him, is that worth anything? So far, some things are cut into little pieces and they are no good, other things are cut into little pieces and are good.

Rebbi Immi said, Kama came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They said to him, go and pay according to those Tannaїm: “One redeems Second Tithe when it is cheap, not when it is expensive; at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.” So far for large quantities, what about small ones? Even so, at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one redeems Second Tithe by the offers of three buyers, even if one of them is a Gentile, even if one of them is an owner. Rebbi Jonah asked: Not two Gentiles, not two owners; also not one Gentile and one owner? No, it was said separately.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

How do we hold? If he said to him, go and redeem for me, he is his agent; go and redeem for yourself, they are the other’s property. But we have to hold that he said to him, redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property. We have stated thus: “Redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property, he does not add a fifth.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where neither it nor its redemption money is his, he does not have to add a fifth. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 27:31): “If a person goes to redeem of his own tithes, his own fifth he shall add to it;” both it and its redemption money must be his.

How do we hold? If he said to him, go and redeem for me, he is his agent; go and redeem for yourself, they are the other’s property. But we have to hold that he said to him, redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property. We have stated thus: “Redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property, he does not add a fifth.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where neither it nor its redemption money is his, he does not have to add a fifth. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 27:31): “If a person goes to redeem of his own tithes, his own fifth he shall add to it;” both it and its redemption money must be his.

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add a fifth to the second tetradrachma. Rebbi Eleazar stared at him. He said to him, why do you stare at me? Rebbi Hila also agrees with it, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where not it and its redemption money is his, he does not add a fifth.

Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for something that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what rightfully is hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for something that is not his? In addition, from what Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to take it back, he may take it back. Rebbi Yose stood near to Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”? They said, at the moment he said it, it was a just yes.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, all dreams follow their interpretations except for wine. There is one who drinks and it is good for him and one who drinks and it is bad for him. A scholar drinks and it is good for him, a vulgar drinks and it is bad for him.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels him who says “in the evening”, as we have stated: “Rebbi Dosa says, ‘everything the poor will collect between the sheaves shall be abandoned’, it is abandoned. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” But he is not parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Can one abandon anything if it is standing on the ground? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is even parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Is it not Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? In addition, he holds that taking Second Tithe is its redemption. Rebbi Yose said, is that (Lev. 27:19): “It shall be his”? If somebody saw a loaf floating in a river and said, that loaf shall be dedicated, did he say anything? Rebbi Jeremiah said, before you ask all these questions regarding “in the morning”, ask them regarding “in the evening!” He answered him, he who holds “in the evening” does not have all these questions.

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

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

Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel and the elders were sitting on the steps of the Hall on the Temple Mount and Joḥanan, the Cohen, their scribe, was sitting before them. They said to him, go and write:

MISHNAH: In the afternoon of the holiday they made the declaration. How was the declaration? (Deut. 26:13) “I removed the holy produce from the house,” is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is ḥallah. “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it. (Deut. 26:14) “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning;” therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity;” therefore if he separtated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it. (Deut. 26:15) “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven,” we did what You decided for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our forefathers, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits. Because of this, they said that Israel persons and Mamzerim may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rebbi Meïr says, also excluding Cohanim or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi started with this: (Ps. 71:16): “I shall come in strength, Eternal, God.” It is written (Zach. 4:14): “These are the two oil-sons who stand over the Lord of all the earth.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, these are the ones who come in novitiate before the Holy One, praised be He. The other one says, these are the ones who come by the power of [kept] commandments and good deeds before the Holy One.

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

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

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

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

“The hitters.” Those who were hitting the calf between its horns. Joḥanan the High Priest said to them, how long will you feed torn animals to the altar? He went and made them rings. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He made rings for them, rings wide below and narrow at the top.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

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

Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed: If somebody ground and mixed piggul and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden. If one made five doughs from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 23:14): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing.

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

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

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

Did we not state: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine. If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away.

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

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

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 but he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal. There is no difference between gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

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 Assi 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: Is it 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 Assi 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: Is it 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.

“Less than five quarter [qab] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [qab] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, dema‘ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible dema‘ and is eaten because of dema‘. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [qab], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate. Could he say to him, three and separate? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, qabim in their places are measured by quarters. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of ḥallah.

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

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated: Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101.” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated: Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101.” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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