jo

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends.

“ If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews?

“ If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews?

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

HALAKHAH: “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind. They gave to one woman who minds the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour], she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree?

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

This means that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots for carrots at a place where [the leaves] are eaten. This happened with Gamliel the twin who had forgotten to put his carrots in order. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery!

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt.

Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession, removals, and animal tithe. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen.” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?) But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch!

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘orlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘orlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Assi said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem it as from the time it is sown? Rebbi Hanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Assi said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem it as from the time it is sown? Rebbi Hanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Assi said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem it as from the time it is sown? Rebbi Hanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Assi said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem it as from the time it is sown? Rebbi Hanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked Gamliel the Twin: Are you used to take ḥallah from demay? He answered him, did not Samuel, the brother of Rav Berekhia, say that from the moment they decreed demay, most people separate it in their houses? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a condition of the court that ḥallah be in the Northernmost part.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

Who stated “they combine with one another”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is that all forbidden [foods] combine with one another to whip for them in the volume of an olive since it says: (Deut. 14:3) “You shall not eat any abomination.”

Here, you say one has to lift, but there you say, one does not have to lift! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because of robbing the tribe. Also, it was stated thus: “Any heave for which the Cohanim do not care, e. g., the heave of kelesin, carob, and red barley, one does not have to lift.”

So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. As we have stated there: “In a narrow-mouthed flask he dips and takes it out normally. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the first sprinkling.” Just as Rebbi Jehudah said the first pushes out the last, so here Rebbi Eliezer said the first pushes out the last.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: What is the difference between heave with regard to lay people and Sabbatical produce with regard to Cohanim? Heave for lay people is forbidden; is Sabbatical produce for Cohanim permitted? Rebbi Joḥanan came back and said, explain it that heave sourdough fell in first; the Sabbatical produce did only spoil.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: What is the difference between heave with regard to lay people and Sabbatical produce with regard to Cohanim? Heave for lay people is forbidden; is Sabbatical produce for Cohanim permitted? Rebbi Joḥanan came back and said, explain it that heave sourdough fell in first; the Sabbatical produce did only spoil.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (Deut. 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled. For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written, a prohibition to eat is written, a prohibition to remove it is not written.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, pigments in pigments become insignificant in 200. Fluid dyes in fluid dyes by a majority.

May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All these gourds and pumpkins we eat fall under the rules of Greek gourd.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

“ ‘Orlah from practice”. Samuel said, practice of the country. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice from Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Assi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice from Moses on Sinai, and you say so? He said, when practice was proclaimed, it was given in this way. He said, if I had come to the Land of Israel only to hear this it would have been been enough for me.

“ ‘Orlah from practice”. Samuel said, practice of the country. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice from Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Assi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice from Moses on Sinai, and you say so? He said, when practice was proclaimed, it was given in this way. He said, if I had come to the Land of Israel only to hear this it would have been been enough for me.

“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (Lev. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you should not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, …, ša‘aṭnez shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land, so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (Lev. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you should not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, …, ša‘aṭnez shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land, so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

It was stated: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah means: “Why can he not bring? Because it was said (Deut. 26:2): ‘the beginning of the First Fruits of your land.’ ”

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

“Oil olives” that is agory. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is the Avaritic. Why is it called agory? Because it stores its oil inside. Do all other olives lose their oil? Rebbi Ḥanina said, all other olives will leach their oil if rains fall on them but this one stores its oil inside.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The heir brings and does not make the declaration. How do we hold? If about an heir during his father’s lifetime, he is his agent. But after his father’s death it is his own! But we deal with the case that his father was seriously ill.

“It is written (Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating this as the opinion of a single individuum. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For the replacement one is not obligated for a fifth.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Huna: The replacement one even buys on the market. How do you treat these? As addition of First Fruits or adornment of First Fruits? If you treat them as addition to First Fruits they are not under the rules of demay. If you treat them as adornment of First Fruits they are under the rules of demay.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally, whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally, whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

Rebbi Assi understood it from the following (Deut. 12:22): “The impure and the pure shall eat it together.” Here, the impure and the pure shall eat it from the same platter, but heave the impure and the pure may not eat from the same platter. About sacrifices? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, if about sacrifices it is already written (Lev. 7:19): “Meat touching anything impure may not be eaten.”

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance. As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel. I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money. Rebbi Jehudah said, but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance. As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel. I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money. Rebbi Jehudah said, but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, “the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state: “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits? He said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everybody agrees that its New Year is the 15th of Šebaṭ. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jonathan: According to years or according to seasons? He said to him, according to years and even in an intercalary year.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everybody agrees that its New Year is the 15th of Šebaṭ. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jonathan: According to years or according to seasons? He said to him, according to years and even in an intercalary year.

How often does a person have to rise before an Elder? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: twice a day. Rebbi Eleazar said, once a day. Was it not stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, from where that an Elder should not importune? The verse says (Lev. 19:32): “Elder, but you should fear your God, I am the Eternal.” According to Rebbi Joḥanan, this is understandable. According to Rebbi Eleazar one should not get up at all! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That he should not see a group of old men and pass in front of them so they should rise before him. Just as they disagree here, so they disagree about greeting.

How often does a person have to rise before an Elder? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: twice a day. Rebbi Eleazar said, once a day. Was it not stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, from where that an Elder should not importune? The verse says (Lev. 19:32): “Elder, but you should fear your God, I am the Eternal.” According to Rebbi Joḥanan, this is understandable. According to Rebbi Eleazar one should not get up at all! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That he should not see a group of old men and pass in front of them so they should rise before him. Just as they disagree here, so they disagree about greeting.

Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus and smaller people than he were ordained but he was not ordained. Simeon bar Abba was an expert in everything concerning pearls but he did not have a loaf to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan quoted about him (Eccl. 9:11): “Also bread is not for Sages.” He said, anybody who does not know the good works of Abraham may know them through the good works of this man’s ancestors. Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus when Rebbi Abbahu sent him a letter and enclosed some of his grey hair: “For these gray hairs’ sake, get up and go to the Land of Israel. Who would remove the earth from your eyes, Rebbi Joḥanan: Abbahu the shoe-clad was ordained, Simeon the toga-clad was not ordained!”

Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus and smaller people than he were ordained but he was not ordained. Simeon bar Abba was an expert in everything concerning pearls but he did not have a loaf to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan quoted about him (Eccl. 9:11): “Also bread is not for Sages.” He said, anybody who does not know the good works of Abraham may know them through the good works of this man’s ancestors. Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus when Rebbi Abbahu sent him a letter and enclosed some of his grey hair: “For these gray hairs’ sake, get up and go to the Land of Israel. Who would remove the earth from your eyes, Rebbi Joḥanan: Abbahu the shoe-clad was ordained, Simeon the toga-clad was not ordained!”

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door], as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door], as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.