laqish

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Usually when someone stretches the ropes of a tent, in time the ropes will loosen. But here (Is. 40:22) “He stretched them like a tent to sit in,” and it said (Job 37:18): “they are strong.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: “Usually if someone casts a vessel, in time it will rust. But here “like a cast mirror,” all the time they look like newly cast. Rebbi Azariah comments on the remark of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Gen. 2:1–3) “The sky and the earth and all their hosts were completed. God finished on the Seventh Day … and God blessed the Seventh Day.” What is written after that? (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies.” What has one to do with the other? Only that a day comes and goes, a week comes and goes, a month comes and goes, a year comes and goes. And it is written (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Eternal, God, created earth and heaven.”

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Usually when someone stretches the ropes of a tent, in time the ropes will loosen. But here (Is. 40:22) “He stretched them like a tent to sit in,” and it said (Job 37:18): “they are strong.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: “Usually if someone casts a vessel, in time it will rust. But here “like a cast mirror,” all the time they look like newly cast. Rebbi Azariah comments on the remark of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Gen. 2:1–3) “The sky and the earth and all their hosts were completed. God finished on the Seventh Day … and God blessed the Seventh Day.” What is written after that? (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies.” What has one to do with the other? Only that a day comes and goes, a week comes and goes, a month comes and goes, a year comes and goes. And it is written (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Eternal, God, created earth and heaven.”

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Usually when someone stretches the ropes of a tent, in time the ropes will loosen. But here (Is. 40:22) “He stretched them like a tent to sit in,” and it said (Job 37:18): “they are strong.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: “Usually if someone casts a vessel, in time it will rust. But here “like a cast mirror,” all the time they look like newly cast. Rebbi Azariah comments on the remark of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Gen. 2:1–3) “The sky and the earth and all their hosts were completed. God finished on the Seventh Day … and God blessed the Seventh Day.” What is written after that? (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies.” What has one to do with the other? Only that a day comes and goes, a week comes and goes, a month comes and goes, a year comes and goes. And it is written (Gen. 2:4) “These are the generations of the skies and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Eternal, God, created earth and heaven.”

Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi is (Ps. 119:62): “At midnight I get up to thank You for Your just laws.” And it is written (Ps. 119:148): “My eyes preceded night watches.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Abba, one explained the reason of Rebbi, the other the reason of Rebbi Nathan. He who explained the reason of Rebbi: “at midnight”. He who explained the reason of Rebbi Nathan (Jud. 7:19): “at the start of the middle watch.” How does Rebbi Nathan uphold the basis of Rebbi’s reason, “at midnight”? Sometimes “at midnight,” sometimes “my eyes preceded night watches.” How is that? When David had a state dinner, “at midnight.” When he ate by himself, “my eyes preceded night watches.” In no case did dawn come and found David asleep. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9): “Wake up, my honor, wake up, o harp and lute, I shall awake dawn.” My honor has to be awake because of the honor of my Creator. My honor counts for nothing before the honor of my Creator. I shall awake dawn, dawn will not awake me. His evil instinct was trying to seduce him and told him: David, usually dawn awakes kings and you say “I shall awake dawn!” Usually kings sleep until three hours into the day and you say “at midnight I get up!” But he answers, “for Your just laws.” What did David do? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem: He took a harp, put it on his headboard, got up at midnight and started playing on it so that his companions in the study of Torah should hear it. What were his companions in the study of Torah saying? When king David studies Torah, certainly we have to do it also! Rebbi Levi said: a lute was hanging in David’s window and in the night the North wind was blowing and moving it and it was playing by itself. This refers to what is written (2Kings 3:15): “It happened when the musical instrument was playing.” It does not say “when he played on the musical instrument” but “when the instrument was playing”; it was playing by itself.

There it was stated (Tamid Mishnah 5:1): “The official in charge told them: recite one benediction! and they recited one benediction.” What benediction did they recite? Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel: that is the benediction for the Torah. “Then they recited the Ten Commandments and the three sections of Shema‘.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that means that the benedictions are no obstacle. Rebbi Abba said: From here you cannot draw any inference because the Ten Commandments contain the essence of Shema‘. Rav Mattanah and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman both say that it would have been logical to require that the Ten Commandments should be recited every day. Why does one not recite them? Because of the arguments of the Christians, that they should not say that only these were given to Moses at Sinai.

HALAKHAH: Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.

HALAKHAH: Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.

When Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada, the nephew of Bar Qappara, died did Resh Laqish accept for him since he was his teacher and a student is beloved as a son. He went and eulogized him: (Song of Songs 6:2) “My friend descended to his garden, to the spice patch, to shepherd in the gardens.” It would have been necessary only to say “ “My friend descended to shepherd in the gardens.” But “my friend” is the Holy One, praise to Him. “He descended to His garden”, that is the world. “To the spice patch”, that is Israel. “To shepherd in the gardens”, these are the peoples of the world. “And to collect lilies”, these are the just ones whom He removes from their midst. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To a king who had a son whom he loved very much. What did the king do? He planted a garden for him. When the son did the will of his father, the father searched in the entire world for a nice plant and planted it in his garden. When the son was making him angry, he cut down all his plants. So when Israel does the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, he searches the entire world and observes the just person, brings him and attaches him to Israel, like Jethro and Rahab. And when they are making him angry he removes the just ones from amongst them.

From where the overturning of beds? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Job 2:13) “They sat with him towards the ground.” It does not say here “on the ground” but “they sat with him towards the ground,” on something close to the ground. It follows that they were sleeping on overturned couches. Bar Qappara said: A beautiful form I had in your house and you caused me to overturn it, you also overturn your bed! Some quote it by the expression “let him overturn; overturn the agent!” Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. One said, why does he sleep on an overturned coach? So that he should wake up in the night and realize that he is a mourner. The other one said, since he sleeps on an overturned bed he wakes up in the night and realizes that he is a mourner.

The maternal uncle of Rebbi Ada had rolled up the kaftan of Rav on the Great Fastday. He said to him: When you see the sun on top of the date palms, give me my kaftan so that we may pray Minḥah. And when the sun is on top of the date palms it is daytime. As Rebbi Yoḥanan said (Is. 44:27): “He Who said to the deep: dry up!”, that is Babylonia, the filth of the world. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Why is it called “the deep”, because there the dead of the Deluge were submerged, (Jer. 51:49) “Also in Babylonia the slain of Israel will fall, also in Babylonia the corpses of all the earth did fall.” It is written (Gen. 11:2) “They found a valley in the land Shinear and dwelt there.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, why is it called Shinear? Because there the dead of the Deluge were thrown. Another explanation: Because they die in strangulation, without light or public baths. Another explanation: Shinear, because they are stripped of miẓwot, without terumah and without tithes. Another explanation: Shinear, because its rulers die as youths. Another explanation: Shinear, because it produced a hater and enemy of the Holy One, praise to Him. Who is that? That is Nebuchadnezzar the evil one.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was thinking very hard about Torah. He overstepped the Sabbath boundary without noticing it, to confirm (Prov. 5:19): “In its love you will always err.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael was thinking very hard about Torah. His toga slipped off from him and he did not notice it, to confirm: “In its love you will always err.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon was thinking very hard about Torah. His toga slipped off from him but a viper was caring for it. His students told him: Teacher, your toga has slipped off. He said to them, does this evil one not care for it?

Rebbi Jacob from Kefar Ḥanan in the name of Resh Laqish: When Abraham their forefather did My will, I swore to him that dew will never move away from his descendants forever; what is the reason? (Ps. 110:3) “You have the dew of your youth.” And it is written after that (Ps. 110:4) “The Eternal swore and He will not change His intention.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, by a will I gave it to Abraham, as a gift I gave it to him. (Gen. 27:28) “God may give you from the dew of heaven.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani said, when Israel sin and do evil the rains are arrested. They bring an old man like Rebbi Yose the Galilean, he prays for them and the rains come. But dew does not descend by the merit of any creature, what is the reason? (Micah 5:6) “Like dew from the Eternal, like light showers on grass, that do not listen to anybody nor wait for humans.”

HALAKHAH: It is written (Ps. 24:1): “The Eternal’s are the earth and what is in it, the dry land and its inhabitants.” He who profits from the world commits larceny until good deeds will permit him. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master, my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Mishnah was from before they learned royal meals and at a place where the salted fish is the main food, but at a place where salted fish is not the main food that does not apply. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav, pitta bread and morsels, one recites on the morsels at a place where the morsels are the main food. But at a place where morsels are not the main food that does not apply. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, šeqizmi and bread, one recites on the šeqizmi at a place where the šeqizmi are the main food. But at a place where šeqizmi are not the main food that does not apply.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Three are required, two have permission. Rebbi Zeïra said this before Rebbi Yasa. He said to him: I have only the Mishnah, three who ate together are required to “invite”. The rabbis of here stick by their opinion, the rabbis of there stick by their opinion. Samuel said, two who judged, their judgment is valid but they are called an insolent court. Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, two who judged, their judgment is invalid.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ḥallah and for washing one’s hands, he has to walk up to four mil. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way.

“Also, one does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rebbi Zeïra, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, preached: (Gen. 1:4) “God saw the light that it was good” and after that, “God separated between the light and the darkness.”. Rebbi Berekhiah said: The following was preached by the two greats of the world, Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “God separated,” a true separation. Rebbi Yehudah, the son of Rebbi Simon, said: He separated it for Himself. But the rabbis say, He separated it for the just in the future world. They gave a parable, to what can this situation be compared? To a king who had two generals; both of them said: “I want to command during the day.” He called the first one and told him: day shall be your domain. He called the second one and told him: night shall be your domain. That is what is written: (Gen. 1:5) “God called the light ‘day’, etc.” To the light he said: day shall be your domain; but to the darkness he said: night shall be your domain. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that it is which the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Job: (Job 38:12) “Did you ever command the morning, did you inform the morning of its place?” Do you know the place where the light of the Six Days of Creation was hidden? Rebbi Tanḥuma said: I shall give its reason. (Is. 45:7) “He Who fashioned the light and created darkness, He makes peace.” When it left, it made peace between them.

Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said, flesh and blood has a relative. If he is rich, he acknowledges him. If he is poor, he disawovs him. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this; even if Israel is in deepest distress, He calls them My brothers and My friends. What is the reason (Ps. 122:8): “For My brothers and friends.” Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: flesh and blood has a relative. If he is a philosopher, he says: “This X is related to us.” But the Holy One, praise to Him, calls all of Israel relatives; that is what is written (Ps. 148:14): “He raises the fortunes of His people.”

Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said, flesh and blood has a relative. If he is rich, he acknowledges him. If he is poor, he disawovs him. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this; even if Israel is in deepest distress, He calls them My brothers and My friends. What is the reason (Ps. 122:8): “For My brothers and friends.” Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: flesh and blood has a relative. If he is a philosopher, he says: “This X is related to us.” But the Holy One, praise to Him, calls all of Israel relatives; that is what is written (Ps. 148:14): “He raises the fortunes of His people.”

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the surface should be wet. Rebbi Yannai ben Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, atthe end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar Abimi were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for fast days; he answered: Yes. He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, it is the argumentation of my teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Zeïra. He said to him, but we say: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said: In a scroll of the pious they found written: If you abandon me for one day, I shall abandon you for two days. An example of two people who went, one from Tiberias and one from Sepphoris, and met at a certain shelter. As soon as they parted and each one went one mil, they were separated two mil. Or a woman who sat and waited for a man. All the time that he intended to marry her, she sat and waited for him. When he put her out of his mind, she went and married another.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

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

The linen traders had an assembly. There was one whose nickname was Bar Ḥovez (son of the cheesemaker) who did not appear. They said: What are we going to eat today? One said: cheese, then the cheeser will come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one was calumniating in secret. The city councilmen of Sepphoris had an assembly. There was one by the name of Joḥanan who did not appear. One said to the other, let us visit Rebbi Joḥanan today. They said, Joḥanan will come. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this one calumniated justly.

Why is it called “triple?” Because it kills three: The one who says it, the one who accepts it, and the one calumniated. And in the days of Saul, four were killed: Doeg who said it, Saul who accepted it, Aḥimelekh who was calumniated, and Abner. Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us, and Joab said, let them get up.” R. Simeon ben Laqish, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling of this one, it was torn off by thorns. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene.

Why is it called “triple?” Because it kills three: The one who says it, the one who accepts it, and the one calumniated. And in the days of Saul, four were killed: Doeg who said it, Saul who accepted it, Aḥimelekh who was calumniated, and Abner. Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us, and Joab said, let them get up.” R. Simeon ben Laqish, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling of this one, it was torn off by thorns. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: If a person was perfectly just all his days and at the end he rebelled, he lost all he worked for his entire life. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:18) “If a just person reverts from his justness and does mischief.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wonders about his earlier deeds. If a person was perfectly evil all his days and at the end he repents, the Holy One, praise to Him, receives him. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:27) “If a sinner returns from his wickedness.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only that but all transgressions are counted as merits for him. What is the reason? (Ps. 45:9) “Myrrh, aloe, cassia, all your faithlessness.” All faithless acts in which you were faithless towards Me are like myrrh, aloe, and cassia.

HALAKHAH: “One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? Even if he has still more to harvest. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for the beginning and one for the end. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for sacred property and one for private persons. Rebbi Yudan asked, do not coins redeem sacred property only when it is cut; maybe when it is standing? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, you should not say that harvest of sacred property should be treated like harvest of a private person.

HALAKHAH: “One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? Even if he has still more to harvest. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for the beginning and one for the end. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for sacred property and one for private persons. Rebbi Yudan asked, do not coins redeem sacred property only when it is cut; maybe when it is standing? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, you should not say that harvest of sacred property should be treated like harvest of a private person.

Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side it does not separate. But did we not state: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths higher than the other, he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that, does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left! Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears!

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: All trees are dangerous. Does Rebbi Meïr not infer from “harvest” while the rabbis likewise infer from “harvest?” Everybody infers from “harvest”, except that Rebbi Meïr says that all trees are dangerous and the rabbis say only the climbing vine and the date palm are dangerous. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It has happened that five brothers died climbing five smooth nut trees.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself. What is the reason? (1Chr. 22:14) “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much, I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him.

Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which cannot be acquired within four cubits can be acquired by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find?

Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which cannot be acquired within four cubits can be acquired by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find?

Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, and it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.

It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit; and you say that the find belongs to the employer? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend.

It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit; and you say that the find belongs to the employer? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend.

It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit; and you say that the find belongs to the employer? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend.

It was stated: If one hires a worker to do all kinds of work for him, the worker’s findings belong to his employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: If he wants to quit, he may quit; and you say that the find belongs to the employer? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Yasa asked, why do we need that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not understand that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, a man may acquire a find for his friend. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a man cannot acquire a find for his friend.

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

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

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend, but you may bend for him in his gifts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say that property abandoned to the poor is abandoned. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that it is free from tithes because property abandoned by a court order is abandoned. It is written (Ezra 10:8): “Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction.” From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain.

What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of the House of Hillel, (Ex.23:11) “let drop,” why does the verse say, “and abandon it”? There is another abandoning like this one. Just as this one is for poor and rich alike, also what is spoken of elsewhere is for poor and rich alike.

How do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

What are we discussing? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row, three would be enough. One scholar quoted this statement by Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Anything he can split and make into a row following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah: That goes by proportionality; “if all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one,” if all sheaves of a field are of two qab each, except one which is of eight qab.

It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai: When he puts away the knee cushion and finishes, then he still has at the top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The remainder of the harvest. Rebbi Abbahu said, that which takes care of the hidden ones: (1Sam. 23:23) “Find out and see all the hiding places where he could hide.”

Clarification. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by the orchard of Doron. The sharecropper brought them one peach; they and their donkeys ate from it and left some over. They estimated it to be like a dish from Kefar Ḥananiah that contains a seah of lentils. After a time they passed by there, he brought them two or three peaches in one hand. They said to him, we would like some from that tree. He said to them, they are from it. On that, they quoted (Ps. 107:34): “A fruit-bearing land into salt flats, because of the evil of its inhabitants.”

Clarification. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish went to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias. A poor man met them and said to them: acquire merit by me. They said to him, when we return, when we return. When they returned, they found him dead. They said, since we did not acquire merit during his lifetime, let us care for him in his death. While they were occupied with him, they found a pouch of denars hanging on him. They said, that is what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We have to give thanks to the dishonest among them, because if there were no dishonest persons among them, if one of them was requesting alms from a man and he would not give him, he would be punished immediately.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only demay is mentioned, hence one is obligated if they are certain. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are free whether demay or certain. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, didn’t they mention only demay? Hence if it is certain, is it not obligated? Rebbi La said, since at every place he considers only demay, here he quotes only demay.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If they were kept in storage they are obligated.” Did they not essentially come from abandoned property? He explains it, if most people keep them in storage. Come and see, if most people keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If most people do not keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are free, be it demay or certain. Half and half you cannot consider since we have stated: “Half and half is demay.” Rebbi Zeïra said, not only the easy ones for demay but even demay itself.

It was stated: If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Gentiles, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Jews, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are free, be it demay or certain. If there is any doubt whether there is a majority of Gentiles or a majority of Jews, that is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Huna said: Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not contradict Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of Shiqmana, should they not be free? Rebbi Yose said, explain it at a place where most people store it. Rebbi Yose the Great asked: Is not the entire world before him, should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of this place and be free?

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah: “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there. We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here. Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim!

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Cahana asked R. Simeon ben Laqish: What is the rule for someone who mates sea animals? He said to him, it is written about them (Gen. 1:21): “By their kinds.” Rebbi Aḥa did not say so, but Rebbi Aḥa used to say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, wherever “by their kinds” is written, kilaim applies to it. Rebbi Cahana objected, it is written about the animals of the sea “by their kinds;” kilaim should apply to them! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here did Cahana spread his net over Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and caught him. Rebbi Jonah said, I can explain it, because of one who leads. He brings a string and binds it to the gills of a white fish and a green fish; they rub one another and spawn.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Cahana asked R. Simeon ben Laqish: What is the rule for someone who mates sea animals? He said to him, it is written about them (Gen. 1:21): “By their kinds.” Rebbi Aḥa did not say so, but Rebbi Aḥa used to say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, wherever “by their kinds” is written, kilaim applies to it. Rebbi Cahana objected, it is written about the animals of the sea “by their kinds;” kilaim should apply to them! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here did Cahana spread his net over Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and caught him. Rebbi Jonah said, I can explain it, because of one who leads. He brings a string and binds it to the gills of a white fish and a green fish; they rub one another and spawn.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Cahana asked R. Simeon ben Laqish: What is the rule for someone who mates sea animals? He said to him, it is written about them (Gen. 1:21): “By their kinds.” Rebbi Aḥa did not say so, but Rebbi Aḥa used to say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, wherever “by their kinds” is written, kilaim applies to it. Rebbi Cahana objected, it is written about the animals of the sea “by their kinds;” kilaim should apply to them! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here did Cahana spread his net over Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and caught him. Rebbi Jonah said, I can explain it, because of one who leads. He brings a string and binds it to the gills of a white fish and a green fish; they rub one another and spawn.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder: He makes it two by two cubits, but decreases continuously to an arbitrarily small distance. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if it is subdivided into garden beds, but if all is one bed, it does not apply. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: I may sow my field with fifty kinds, twenty-five here and twenty-five there; this is in two rows. If that is so, would it be permitted even between himself and his neighbor? Or in a dry spot? Then it parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi said, he starts with an area of bet rova‘ and narrows it down to three furrows of the ploughshare. Does Rebbi not accept that between grains one needs a bet rova‘? That is for a square field, here for a garden bed. Do the rabbis not recognize garden beds? Rebbi Yudan said, the minimal distance for Rebbi is the maximal distance for the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated only: “A vertex of wheat;” hence, a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: (Is. 61:11) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

Rebbi Nassa asked: Is it not reasonable that, if the top of the surrounding wall is two hand-breadths wide, one is permitted to sow on it two kinds? Rebbi Nassa asked: If he drew a string in the middle, sowed in half of it, how far can he draw it? From what Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi said, “explain it if the walls diminish six,” that means that it may be even less than that. Let us hear from the following: “In depressions that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” That means, down to one hand-breadth. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon from Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They taught “leaning towards a dry spot”.

Samuel said, they taught only one row, hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six.

“One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated: “One may make a small hole in one’s field, one hand-breadth deep, sow in it four seeds, and turn them to the four directions of the compass.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon of Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That was taught regarding those which lean towards a dry spot. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges?

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

Rebbi Judan asked: What if he made a fence inside a fence? He said, if there are three hand-breadths one may sow there, otherwise one may not sow there. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a place of twelve cubits there, the circumference would be eliminated. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, only if it is twelve by twelve. Rebbi Mana said, even if it continuously narrows.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “If they produce greenery it should be plowed under:” all is permitted. “If they are green stalks, they should be broken:” the straw is permitted but the grains are forbidden. “If they produced grain it must be burned:” all is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all is forbidden. What does our statement mean, “if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned”? It parallels what we have stated there: “Orlah and kilaim of a vineyard. Anything that usually is buried should be buried. Anything that usually is burned should be burned.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult. Is it not forbidden anyhow for the House of Shammai as a vineyard? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. In that case, it would not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence. Rebbi Jonah inquired: May one sow in between? Is it in a straight line, that you say it is forbidden to sow in between? May one sow between the vines? As you say in the case of a row of gourds that it is forbidden to sow in between the pits, so here also it is forbidden to sow in between the vines.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.