mishnah

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

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: A tree which stands inside and [its crown] extends outside, or stands outside and extends inside, what is above the wall and inside is like inside, above the wall and outside is like outside. Oil presses whose entrances are inside but their space extends to the outside or whose entrances are outside but their space extends to the inside, the House of Shammai say it is all counted as inside, but the House of Hillel say what is under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. If chambers are built in the holy precinct and open to the profane domain, their insides are profane but their roofs holy. If they are built in the profane domain but open to the holy precinct, their insides are holy but their roofs profane. If they are built in the holy and the profane and open both to the holy and the profane, their insides and their roofs, over the holy and in direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so is the Mishnah: “Their insides are holy and their roofs (are profane), over the holy and in the direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.” “Built in the holy but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is holy. Built in the profane but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is profane. There, where you say the inside is holy one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices and the impure who enters is guilty.”

MISHNAH: Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity or from derivative impurity, inside [the city] or outside, the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside. But the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

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

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

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

MISHNAH: If somebody transports Second Tithe produce from a place of high prices to one of low prices or vice versa, he redeems at the level of his place. If he brings produce from the threshing floor to town or from the wine-press to town, the excess value belongs to the Second but the expense is on him. One redeems Second Tithe following the low rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins. One does not redeem Second Tithe en bloc; if the price is known it is redeemed by the information of one person, if the price is not known by the information of three, as e. g., wine getting sour, fruit rotting, or coins rusting.

MISHNAH: If the owner says a tetradrachma and another says a tetradrachma, the owner is preferred since he adds a fifth. The owner says a tetradrachma and someone else says a tetradrachma and an as, the one who offers a tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital. He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift.

“He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it was his own or was given to him as a gift.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says, a gift is not like a sale. Rebbi Jonah said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it with produce still ṭevel for tithes. But did we not state: “He who redeems his own fourth-year tree adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift”? Can you say that this speaks about produce still ṭevel for (Second Tithe? We have stated) “fourth-year tree!” That means the fourth-year tree itself! So here, you will end up saying “tithe”.

MISHNAH: One may circumvent about Second Tithe. How is this? A person may say to his neighbor, his adult son or daughter, his Hebrew male or female slave: Take these coins and redeem this tithe for yourself. But he should not say so to his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand. If somebody was standing on the threshing floor and no coins were in his hand, he says to a friend, this produce is given to you as a gift; then he goes on and says to him, it is redeemed by coins in the house.

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, always the taking up of Second Tithe is its redemption.”

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but here you have it and give it to her, if he wants to take it back, he may take it back.” The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me. ‘Bring it to her, give it to her, acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may take it back; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back.” Rebbi says, in any of these cases he may not take it back except if he says, “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but give it to her.” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. Rebbi Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is divorced and not divorced. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were at the same theme, it is a bill of divorce.

MISHNAH: He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it. He who put aside a dupondius and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it would be worth an as, has to eat another half. He who put aside an as of Second Tithe eats for it 11 as and 1/100 of an as; the House of Shammai say, 10 in total, but the House of Hillel say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, two as equal a dupondius. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He who put aside an as and ate for half its worth, went to another place where the coin is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.”

MISHNAH: All found coins are profane, even gold denars with silver or change. If one found with them a potsherd reading “tithe”, it is tithe. If one finds a vessel inscribed “sacrifice”, Rebbi Jehudah said, if it was pottery it is profane and its contents sacrifice, but if it was metal it is sacrifice and its contents profane. They said to him, people do not put profane in sacrifice [vessels]. If one finds a vessel inscribed ק it means sacrifice, מ tithe, ד demay, ט ṭevel, ת heave since in times of danger one wrote ת for heave. Rebbi Yose says, all these are people’s names. Rebbi Yose said, even if he found an amphora full of produce and inscribed “heave”, these are profane since I say last year it was full of tithe produce but he emptied it. If somebody said to his son, “Second Tithe is in that corner” but he found it in another corner, that is profane. “There is a talent” but he found 200, the remainder is profane. “200” and he found 100, all is tithe.

MISHNAH: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth, one of ‘orlah with potsherds; graves with whitewash which is thinned and poured. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? In a Sabbatical year. But discreet religious persons set aside some coins and say, what is taken from here is exchanged for these coins.

HALAKHAH: Zenon asked Rebbi: How should we state, fourth-year vineyard or fourth-year orchard? He said to them, go out and ask Rebbi Isaac the Elder with whom I checked the entire Mishnah. He said to them, the first ones fourth-year vineyard, the second ones fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Zeïra complained about the old people from the time of Rebbi Isaac the Elder, that they did not check all Mishnaiot with him.

MISHNAH: [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, viz., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times they sent to the rural farmers, speed up your produce before the time of removal, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that any produce which did not reach the time of tithing is exempt from removal. If somebody’s produce was far from him, he has to give it a name. It happened that Rabban Gamliel was on a ship with the elders when Rabban Gamliel said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Joshua and its place is rented to him; another tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Aqiba; he should distribute it to the poor, and its place is rented to him. Rebbi Joshua said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Eleazar ben Azariah and its place is rented to him. They paid the rent to each other.

The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated: “Give this divorce document to my wife,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases contained in the Mishnah.

The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated: “Give this divorce document to my wife,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases contained in the Mishnah.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.

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

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

MISHNAH: Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats. These are subject to ḥallah and combine with one another. They are forbidden as new grain before Passover and may not be cut before the ‘omer. If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them on Passover, he did his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened [bread], he is subject to being cut off. If one of them is mixed with other kinds one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these. They are subject to ḥallah and tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one whips because of their ḥallah as a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say one volume of an olive of all of them. It is different since the category of “leavened” applies to all of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted. There, he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another.”

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

MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, as well as abandoned property, First tithe of which its heave had been taken, second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed, the excess of the ‘omer, and grain not yet one-third ripe. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah. The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes, and less than five quarter [qab] of grain. Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah.

“The excess of the ‘omer.” The Mishnah is not Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba makes it liable for heave and tithes.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah. But women who gave to a baker that he should make sour dough for them are free from ḥallah if no individual gave a full measure. A dog biscuit, if the shepherds eat from it, is obligated for ḥallah, one may use it for eruv and participation, one may recite the blessing over it and one invites for it, it may be made on a holiday, and a person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover. If the shepherds do not eat from it, it is not obligated for ḥallah, one may not use it for eruv and participation, it may not be made on a holiday, and no person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover. In any case it can become impure in the impurity of food.

The Mishnah said: “if the shepherds eat from it.” Maybe sometimes the shepherds will not eat from it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any he made into cracknels. We also have stated so: “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected it is free.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Ammi in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, even if he formed it as rolls. But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it?” Explain it if he made it from the start [thinking] that the shepherds should not eat from it.

“It may be made on a holiday.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as it was stated: “One does not make [food] on a holiday for use after the holiday.” Also, it was stated: “A woman may fill a pot with meat even if one eats only one piece from it, a water pot with hot water even if one drinks only one cup from it. But baking, she should bake only what she needs.” For it is stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may fill the entire oven with bread because the bread turns out well if the oven is filled.”

MISHNAH: Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth, they are forbidden to laymen, are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101, need washing of the hands (and feet) and sundown, are not taken from pure for impure but only from what is earmarked and completed. He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is ḥallah did not say anything unless he left out a small amount.

MISHNAH: Foreign produce imported into the Land is obligated for ḥallah. If it was exported, Rebbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rebbi Aqiba declares it free. [Growth of] earth from outside the Land which came to the Land in a ship is under the obligation of tithes and Sabbatical. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches the ground. Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to hallah which can be eaten with unclean hands. A woman may sit down naked and separate her hallah because she can cover herself, but a man may not.

How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them? Let us hear it from this (Mishnah Ḥallah 2:3): “A woman may sit down naked and separate her ḥallah” Is that woman not sitting inside her house and you say that one does not bother her? Also here, one does not bother him.

MISHNAH: If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single qabim and not make it in impurity. Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim, since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single qabim have no named hallah.If somebody makes his dough single qabim and they are touching one another, they are free from ḥallah unless they are biting. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together

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

MISHNAH: If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to ḥallah; the flour, if it is a full measure, is obligated for ḥallah and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed it. He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order. Five quarters of coarse flour are obligated for ḥallah; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned, it is free. The rate of ḥallah is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded. Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for ḥallah from dough from which ḥallah was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.

But did we not state: “If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24?” Not to make a distinction in doughs of a private person. But did we not state: “And also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48?” When she makes it for herself, she is stingy with her dough; when she makes to sell on the market she is generous with her dough. Rebbi said, the Mishnah speaks about one used to give one in 48, but about one who is used to give one in 24, we should state that “the sinner should not be rewarded”.

MISHNAH: One may eat a snack from the dough until it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough. After it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough, one who eats from it commits a deadly sin. After she added water she may lift its ḥallah on condition that there be five quarters of flour.

Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour?” Rebbi said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot.

MISHNAH: If the dough became dema‘ before it was rolled it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah. If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said the additional growth is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it either for Rebbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten? Do I read for this (Lev. 2:3): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read (Num. 18:28) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”.

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

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

MISHNAH: A person may take for ḥallah from a dough prepared in purity and from which ḥallah has not yet been taken, to use it continuously for ḥallah of demay until it decays, since ḥallah of demay may be taken from pure for impure and from what is not earmarked.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

Rebbi Huna said: So is the Mishnah: “Between Akhzib and Euphrates, between Akhzib and Amanus.” It was stated: What is the Land and what is outside the Land? From the slopes of Taurus Amanus inwards is the Land of Israel, from Taurus Amanus to the outside is outside the Land. About the islands in the sea, one looks at them as if a string were drawn from Taurus Amanus to the brook of Egypt; from the string to the inside is the Land of Israel, from the string to the outside is outside the Land. Rebbi Jehudah said, all that lies before the Land of Israel is like the Land of Israel since it is said (Num. 34:6): “The Western border shall be for you the Great Sea as border; that shall be for you the sea border.” Assuming that a string were drawn from Cephalaria to the Ocean, from the brook of Egypt to the Ocean; inside the string is the Land of Israel, outside is outside the Land.

Rebbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra that it needs a plurality. Rebbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: “It may be eaten at one table with a layman”.

MISHNAH: Nittai from Tekoa brought ḥallot from Baithur but they did not accept from him. The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them. The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.” Ben-Atitas brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them. Joseph the Cohen brought his First Fruits as wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household to make the second Passover in Jerusalem but they turned him back so as not to create a precedent for the future. Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them for they said, he who buys in Syria is like him who buys in the suburbs of Jerusalem.

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’ ”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If it could survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected to the old one? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

MISHNAH: If a sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim became mixed with [other] saplings, one should not harvest. If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred on condition that he did not have the intention to harvest. Rebbi Yose says, he may intend to harvest; it will be lifted by one in two hundred.

HALAKHAH: “A sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.

HALAKHAH: “A sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.

MISHNAH: Leaves, shoots, vine sap, and the flower are permitted for ‘orlah, the Fourth Year, and a nazir, but forbidden from a pagan sacred grove. Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is forbidden to use ‘orlah sap as curd. Rebbi Joshua said, I heard explicitly that one is permitted to use sap of leaves and sap of roots as curd. But the sap of unripe figs is forbidden because that is a fruit. Anqoqlot, the grape skins, the grape seeds, and the afterwine made from them, pomegranate skins and their flowers, nut shells, and seeds are forbidden from ‘orlah, sacred groves, and for a nazir. They are permitted in the fourth year. Windfall is forbidden for all of these. Rebbi Yose said, one may plant an ‘orlah shoot but not an ‘orlah nut because the latter is a fruit. Also, one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah.

HALAKHAH: “Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, as was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: (Num. 6:4) “Anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin he shall not eat,” that includes leaves and shoots.

MISHNAH: Heave, heave of the tithe of demay, ḥallah, and First Fruits are lifted by one and 100, they combine with one another, and one has to remove. ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200, they combine with one another, and one need not remove. Rebbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rebbi Eliezer says they combine in matters of perceiving the taste but not to forbid.

MISHNAH: Heave lifts ‘orlah and ‘orlah heave. How is that? If one seah of heave fell into 100 and after that fell three qab of ‘orlah or three qab of vineyard kilaim, that is the case when heave lifts ‘orlah and ‘orlah heave. ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah. How is that? If one seah of ‘orlah fell into 200 and then fell a little more than a seah of ‘orlah or a little more than a seah of vineyard kilaim, that is when ‘orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

Rebbi Jonah asked, why did we [not] state: If groats were cooked with rice? Our Mishnah follows him who holds that what gives a bad taste is permitted. But even he who holds that what gives a bad taste is permitted, here he will agree that it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If profane sourdough fell into dough, enough to cause souring, and afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, also enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden. If profane sourdough fell into dough and caused it to become sour when afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

HALAKHAH: Ḥanania stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first Mishnah also is in disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, we hold to say that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour.

“ Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

MISHNAH: Spices, two or three names from one kind, or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine.

MISHNAH: Spices, two or three names from one kind, or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Yoezer from Bira was one of Shammai’s students. He said, I asked Rabban Gamliel I when he was standing at the Eastern gate and he said, it does not make forbidden unless it alone could make it sour.

MISHNAH: If vessels were oiled first with impure oil and then with pure, or first with pure and then with impure, Rebbi Eliezer says I am going after the first, but the Sages say after the last.

MISHNAH: Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim. If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.

MISHNAH: Spices, two or three names from one kind, or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Most holy meat and simply holy meat that was cooked with meat of desire is forbidden to impure persons and permitted to pure.

MISHNAH: Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned. If it became mixed up with others, all should be burned, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages said, it should be lifted by one in 200.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

MISHNAH: If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a sîṭ with ‘orlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.

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

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

MISHNAH: A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned. If it was mixed with mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200. If one heated an oven with ‘orlah shells and used it to bake bread, the bread must be burned. If it was mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200.

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

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

MISHNAH: They are: Breakable walnuts and pomegranates from Badan, sealed amphoras, beet roots, heads of cabbage, and Greek gourd. Rebbi Aqiba says, also non-commercial loaves. This refers to ‘orlah and vineyard kilaim, as the case may be.

The Mishnah is about sealed among sealed. But a sealed one among open ones which was opened, or an open one among sealed ones which was sealed again need a measure. How is an open one among sealed ones possible? Rebbi Zeïra said, explain as open at the grocer’s and sealed at the private person’s. But did we not state “it was sealed again”? Explain it if the private person came and took it back.