mishnah

Our Mishnah is Rebbi Yose’s since is is stated: “One does not eat because of swollen fruits in Acco. Rebbi Yose says, one eats because of swollen fruits in Acco.” Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and the rabbis disagree about winter fruits, therefore not about double yields. It was found stated: Rebbi Jehudah permits second crop on condition [the tree] produce first fruits before the end of summer.

MISHNAH: He who preserves three kinds in one barrel, Rebbi Eliezer says one eats because of the first kind, but Rebbi Joshua says, even because of the last. Rabban Gamliel says, anything whose kind has disappeared from the fields must be removed from the house. Rebbi Simeon says, all vegetables are one kind for removal; one eats purslain until there are no more sindiot in the Bet Neṭofa valley.

MISHNAH: One may pluck green grasses until the colocynth dries up, and collect dry ones until the second rainfall, leaves of reeds and vines until they fall off from their stems, and collect dry ones until the second rainfall. But Rebbi Aqiba says, all until the second rainfall. Similarly, if one rents out a house until the rains, that is until the second rainfall. If somebody makes a vow not to have any profit from another person until the rains, that is until the second rainfall. Until when may the poor enter orchards? Until the second rainfall. Until when may one use and burn Sabbatical straw and chaff? Until the second rainfall.

There, we have stated: “If somebody says, I am taking upon me [to offer] logs, he should not bring less than two.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am taking upon me [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated: “Two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.”

Is Sabbatical straw forbidden as aftergrowth? Rebbi Levi from Sennabaris asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda and he permitted it. Rebbi Zeïra said, since I did not want to rely on myself I asked those from Beit Barsana and they said, we used to collect straw before the start of the Sabbatical and when we are running out, we bring it from the walls. Rebbi Jeremiah said, a baraita states that it is permitted, as it was stated: “Dyers and cattle feeders may buy coarse bran from everywhere without worry.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, even from one who is suspect. Rebbi Yose said to him, they said that only if he does not know whether he is suspect. Only if he might not be suspect; therefore if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Rebbi Shammai said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden, as we have stated there: “In matters of Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, or dedicated things, if there is enough in both seed and wood to give taste.”

MISHNAH: If somebody had Sabbatical produce when the time of removal came, he distributes food for three meals to everybody. The poor may eat after removal but not rich persons, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, both poor and rich persons may eat after removal. If somebody had Sabbatical produce which fell to him as inheritance or was given to him as a gift, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be given to those who eat it. But the Sages say, a sinner should not be rewarded, but it should be sold to those who eat it and the payment distributed to anybody. He who eats from Sabbatical dough of which ḥallah was not taken commits a deadly sin.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with unlawful produce. But was it not stated: He who finds unlawful produce may not touch it. There is a difference between a find and something that fell to him automatically.

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

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan, with or without a document. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted. If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day, if the month was long it is subject to remission, otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator, and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge, or deposits his documents with the court, they are not subject to remission.

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

MISHNAH: A prozbol does not remit. This is one of the ordinances of Hillel the elder. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:9): “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying, etc.”, he instituted the prozbol. This is the essence of prozbol: I declare before you, judges X and Y at place Z, that I shall collect any debt due me any time I wish. The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.

Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, our Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents was learned from the rules of prozbol.

MISHNAH: A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid. Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. If one person borrows from five, one writes a prozbol for each single [creditor]. If five persons borrow from one, he writes only one prozbol for all of them. One writes prozbol only on the basis of real estate. If he has none, [the other party] gives him the right to a minute area of their field. If he had a field mortgaged in town, one writes a prozbol on it. Rebbi Ḥuẓpit says, one writes for a man on his wife’s properties and for orphans on those of the guardians. A bee hive. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is like real estate: one may write a prozbol on it, it is not subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is guilty. But the Sages say, it is not like real estate, one may not write a prozbol on it, it is subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is not sanctionable. If somebody returns a debt in the Sabbatical, he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting.” If he [the borrower] says “anyway”, he [the lender] should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of remission”. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them: I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 19:4): “This is the word of a homicide.”

MISHNAH: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him. Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word.

MISHNAH: Five [persons] cannot give heave and if they gave it is not heave: the deaf and dumb, the insane, the minor, and one who gives heave from what is not his. The Gentile who gave heave for a Jew’s property, even with the latter’s authorization his heave is not heave. A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave, but if he did, his heave is heave. A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute. Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. Rebbi Yose says, before he came to the time of vows, his heave is not heave. After he has reached the time of vows, his heave is heave.

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

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

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

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

MISHNAH: One may not give olives as heave for oil nor grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say they contain their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.

MISHNAH: One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.

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

MISHNAH: Five categories of persons should not give heave but if they gave, their heave is heave. The mute, the drunk, the naked person, the blind, and a man who had an emission of semen should not give heave but if they gave, their heave is heave. One gives heave neither by measure, nor by weight, nor by count. But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted. One does not give heave in a measuring basket or box, but one may give in them a half or a third. One should not give half a seah of heave in a seah vessel because half of it is a [standard] measure.

Did we not state: “But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “A person may measure his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by measure. A person may weigh his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not weigh by weight. A person may count his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by count.”

MISHNAH: One does not give oil as heave on crushed olives, nor wine on pressed grapes. If one did, it is heave and he has to give another heave. The first one creates dema‘ by itself and one has to pay the fifth but not the second. One may give oil as heave for olives being pickled and wine for grapes to be made into raisins. If one gave oil as heave for table olives, or olives for table olives, or wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes, when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave. One does not give heave from finished, produce for unfinished, or from unfinished for finished, or from unfinished for unfinished. If heave was given, it is heave.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce, like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law.

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap [of grain]. If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other. Rebbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error, his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has ṭevel tithe which he continually uses to give, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he had known of it earlier, even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten. He who plants on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.

“If a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part;” but if part of it becomes impure is not all of it impure? The Mishnah deals with the case that they are connected only by fruit juice. But will it not be cut into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected.

“And similarly for a bunch of vegetable.” The Mishnah deals with the case that it became impure as a bunch but when the single stalks were impure and he bound them together, this does not apply. But will it not be split and made into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected. What is the situation if a bundle became impure, he unbound it and bound it again?

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

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

Our Mishnah is about large vessels, but with small vessels one may use a ruse and immerse them, as Rebbi Hoshaia had stated: “A person may fill an impure vessel from the cistern as a ruse and immerse it.” Also, we have stated: “If his pail or garment fell into the cistern, one may use this as a ruse and immerse them.” Two Amoraïm, one says [one may use a ruse] for vessels impure in original impurity; but the other one says [only] for vessels impure in derivative impurity. The one who said in derivative impurity objected to the one who said in original impurity: Even on weekdays, would it not need sundown? He said to him, if he wants to use them in purity for profane food.

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

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

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from one species for another species; if he gave, his heave is no heave. All kinds of wheat are one. All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other. At a place where there is a Cohen one gives from the best, but where there is no Cohen he gives from what is durable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one always gives from the best. One gives a small whole onion as heave but not half a large onion. Rebbi Jehudah says it is not so, one rather gives half a large onion. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said one gives onions of town people as heave for rural ones but not rural ones for those of town people because they are city-dwellers’ food.

MISHNAH: Also, one may give oil olives as heave for pickling olives but not pickling olives for oil olives, uncooked wine for cooked wine but not cooked wine for uncooked wine. This is the rule: All that is kilaim with another kind, one may not give as heave one for the other, not even good for bad. But all that is not kilaim with another kind, one may give the good as heave for the bad but not the bad for the good; if he gave bad for good, his heave is heave except for zĕwānîn for wheat because they are not food. Green melons and sweet melons are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.

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

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine for vinegar but not from vinegar for wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one for the other.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it seems that Rebbi would agree as to biblical law. What is Rebbi’s reason? If you say so, that one may give heave of wine for vinegar, he will think that one is permitted to give vinegar for wine.

“Green melons and sweet melons are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.” Rebbi Jehudah keeps to his opinion, the rabbis keep to their opinion, as we have stated (Mishnah Kilaim 1:2): “Green melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim.”

MISHNAH: If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a water melon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave, but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second [heaves] do create dema‘ by themselves nor does one have to pay the fifth. If one of them fell into profane [food] it does not create dema‘. If the other one fell into another place it does not create dema‘. If both together fell into one place they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one.

MISHNAH: Partners who gave heave one after the other, Rebbi Aqiba says both of their heaves are heave. But the Sages say, the heave of the first one [only] is heave. Rebbi Yose says, if the first one gave the full measure of heave, then his heave is heave, but if the first one did not give the full measure of heave, then the heave of the second is heave. Where was this said? When he did not say anything. But if he empowered a member of his family, his slave, or his slave girl, their heave is heave. In case he revoked, if he revoked before heave was given, his heave is not heave. But if he revoked after heave was given, his heave is heave. Workers have no right to give heave except for those who press grapes because they make the wine press impure.

MISHNAH: He who says the heave of this heap is contained in it, the tithes are contained in it and the heave of this tithe is contained in it, Rebbi Simeon says he gave it a name but the Sages say, only if he said in its Northern or Southern part. Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma says, he who says, the heave of this heap is from it for itself, gave it a name. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he who says, one tenth of this tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, gave it a name. One who gives heave before First Fruits, First Tithe before heave, Second Tithe before First, even though he transgresses a prohibition what he did is done since it is said (Ex. 22:28): "Your fullness you should not make follow your dema ’ ”. From where that First Fruits should precede heave since either one is called heave and first. First Fruits should precede since they are due before everything else, heave before First Tithe because it is first, First Tithe before the Second because it contains “first”.

MISHNAH: If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering, that I shall not enter this house and he says that one, that I shall have no enjoyment from this one and he says from that one, he did not say anything unless his statement and his intention be equal.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and he says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only if he intended to dedicate but he erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

MISHNAH: The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obliged to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.

MISHNAH: If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes, he takes from this its own heave or tithes but not for another place. Rebbi Meїr says, he may even take it for another place.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes,” etc. Our Mishnah [is said] in case he separated and it is his intention to separate more. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, our Mishnah [is said] if he did not say anything. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Do they disagree? He said to him, if he did not say anything, it is as if it were his intention to separate more.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes,” etc. Our Mishnah [is said] in case he separated and it is his intention to separate more. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, our Mishnah [is said] if he did not say anything. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Do they disagree? He said to him, if he did not say anything, it is as if it were his intention to separate more.

MISHNAH: If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, one may separate another eight se’ot and eat them, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he separates only according to the computation.

MISHNAH: The rate of heave: A generous person one in forty, the House of Shammay say, one in thirty. Average, one in fifty, and stingy, one in sixty. If somebody gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more. When he added, [the addition] is subject to tithes. If it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he has to add in his usual way, by measure, weight, or count. Rebbi Jehudah says, even from what is not earmarked.

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

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

MISHNAH: If somebody said to his agent: go and give heave, he gives heave following the intentions of the owner. If [the agent] does not know the intentions of the owner, he gives average heave, one in fifty. If he diminished by ten or added ten, his heave is heave, but if he intended to exceed [the owner’s intention] by even one, his heave is not heave. If somebody increases heave, Rebbi Eliezer says, up to one tenth like the heave of the tithe. The excess he should make heave of the tithe but not for another place. Rebbi Ismael says, half profane and half heave. Rebbi Ṭarphon and Rebbi Aqiba say more, but he must retain some profane produce.

MISHNAH: For three periods one calibrates the measuring box, for early fruits, late fruits, and in the middle of the summer. He who counts is praiseworthy, he who measures is more praiseworthy, and he who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.

HALAKHAH: He is praiseworthy relative to whom? Rebbi Huna said, praiseworthy relative to one who estimates heave. Rebbi Ḥinena the son of Rebbi Hillel said, does the Mishnah say so? “He who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, explain it “among the three” and it does not imply anything.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 101. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more. This “and more” has no measure; Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another. How is this? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient. And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count.

MISHNAH: One seah of heave which fell into the opening of a storage bin and congealed, Rebbi Eliezer says if the congealed part contains 100 seah it may be lifted by 101; Rebbi Joshua says, it should not be lifted [but] a seah of heave which fell into the opening of a storage bin one should compress. If this is so, why did they say, heave may be lifted in 101? If one does not know whether it was mixed in or where it fell. Two boxes, two storage bins, into one of which a seah of heave fell but it is not known into which one it fell, help to lift one another. Rebbi Simeon says, even if they are in two villages they help to lift one another. Rebbi Yose said: There came a case before Rebbi Aqiba about 50 bundles of vegetables into which one [bundle] fell half of which was heave, and I said before him that it should be lifted, not that heave might be lifted in 51 but that there were 102 halves.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

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

MISHNAH: A seah of heave which fell into 100, if he milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into less than 100, if he milled it and it increased in volume, in proportion to the increase of the profane is the increase of heave, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the profane wheat was of better quality than the heave, it might be permitted. If a seah of heave fell into less than 100 and more profane fell into it later, if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden.

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

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

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

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

MISHNAH: If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth, the word of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal. He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary. One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property, nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe, nor with dedicated food that was redeemed, for dedicated food cannot redeem dedicated food, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages permit the latter.

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

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said (Lev. 22:14): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate.

Rabbi Abin in the name of the rabbis from there: This means that one may not repay with produce from outside the Land. Even if you say one may repay, our Mishnah is from before Rebbi permitted the import of vegetables from outside the Land. He mentioned only green melons which are forbidden produce. But not permitted produce, because if you say so, does it not turn out that he buys himself an axe from Sabbatical money?

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth. His payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive this, he may forgive.

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

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

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

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started, so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning. If she married one of the ineligible, she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning. He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive. This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If she commits adultery, her death is by burning.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

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

MISHNAH: If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered from the garden into the courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish. If it got dark on Sabbath eve, Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish.

MISHNAH: Heave wine that was left uncovered should be poured out, certainly if it was profane. Three kinds of fluids are forbidden when they were uncovered, water, wine, and milk. All other fluids are permitted. How long should they be left unattended to become forbidden? So that the crawling creature might come from a nearby place and drink. The measure of uncovered water, until the bitterness be lost in them. Rebbi Yose said, in vessels any amount and on the ground 40 seah. Pecked-at figs, grapes, green melons, water melons, gourds, and sweet melons, even large as a pitcher, large or small, separated from or connected to the ground which contain moisture are forbidden. What was bitten by a snake is forbidden because of mortal danger.The wine filter is forbidden when left unattended but Rebbi Neḥemiah permits it.

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

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

MISHNAH: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose. Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed [in the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action]. About both of these cases, Rebbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to [intentionally] make it impure. If somebody was on the road with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I shall defile all of them, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rebbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her, otherwise we shall defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: With a vessel which inside is pure but impure outside one does not defile a small amount even to save a large amount. But did we not state: “Let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands?” Rebbi Samuel bar Berekhiah said, explain for two vessels, one pure inside and impure outside, the other impure inside and pure outside. But that Mishnah speaks of one impure vessel! Rebbi Mana said, explain it if the vat is pure; the Mishnah deals with an impure vat. Did we not state: “Let it descend and be absorbed [into the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action].” Explain it if it rolled onto to a bet happĕrās.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: With a vessel which inside is pure but impure outside one does not defile a small amount even to save a large amount. But did we not state: “Let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands?” Rebbi Samuel bar Berekhiah said, explain for two vessels, one pure inside and impure outside, the other impure inside and pure outside. But that Mishnah speaks of one impure vessel! Rebbi Mana said, explain it if the vat is pure; the Mishnah deals with an impure vat. Did we not state: “Let it descend and be absorbed [into the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action].” Explain it if it rolled onto to a bet happĕrās.

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

So is the Mishnah: “If that is so, then only pure persons should collect.”

So is the Mishnah: “It is subject to heaves, tithes, and the tithe of the poor.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, our Mishnah after the lentils lost their sap; [then] the lentils shrink it that it will not give [any taste]. But if he gave it before the lentils gave their sap; it does not deal with that case. And just as you say, the lentils shrink it that it will not give, so the lentils shrink that it will not absorb. How is that? If he put a profane onion into lentils of heave, the lentils shrink it that it will not absorb. That means, if it is dry, but if it is moist it is forbidden. Onions and leeks are forbidden moist or dry, whole or cut up. If he removed the top it is as if cut up. If they are two or three they are as if cut up.

This all is if the outer skin does not impart taste. But if it does, there are Tannaïm who state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” The Mishnah there implies also threshing which is not permitted to you, since we have stated: “He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal.”

MISHNAH: The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, demaʻ, and First Fruits are profane. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing. One hundred lagenae of heave and one profane are all permitted for produce whose seeds desappear; but for produce whose seeds do not disappear, even if there are one hundred profane and one of heave they all are forbidden. Growth from ṭevel is permitted for anything whose seeds disappear, but if the seeds do not disappear even the growth from the growth is forbidden. What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions. Rebbi Jehudah says, garlic is like barley.

MISHNAH: He who weeds with a Non-Jew among bulb plants, even though his vegetables are ṭevel one may eat a snack from them. Saplings of heave that became impure if planted become pure not to transmit impurity but they remain forbidden to be eaten until he removes what is edible. Rebbi Jehudah says, until he removes a second time.