obligated

MISHNAH: Anyone whose dead is lying before him is free from reciting Shema‘ and from tefillin. The carriers of the bier, their substitutes, and the substitutes of their substitutes, in front of the bier or behind the bier, those that are needed by the bier are free, those that are not needed by the bier are obligated. All of them are free from the obligation to pray.

It is stated: “For every obligation that a man is free of, he may help the congregation to fulfill their obligation, except for Grace.” But have we not stated: “Anybody who is not obligated may not help the congregation to fulfill their obligation”? If he were obligated, he could help them to fulfill even if he himself already fulfilled it! Rebbi Lia said: There is a difference about Grace since it is written (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise the Eternal, your God;” he who ate must give praise. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Judah ben Pazi were sitting together and saying: It would be reasonable for reciting the Shema‘ that every single person should repeat it aloud. It would be reasonable for prayer that every single person should pray for mercy by himself.

It is stated: “For every obligation that a man is free of, he may help the congregation to fulfill their obligation, except for Grace.” But have we not stated: “Anybody who is not obligated may not help the congregation to fulfill their obligation”? If he were obligated, he could help them to fulfill even if he himself already fulfilled it! Rebbi Lia said: There is a difference about Grace since it is written (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise the Eternal, your God;” he who ate must give praise. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Judah ben Pazi were sitting together and saying: It would be reasonable for reciting the Shema‘ that every single person should repeat it aloud. It would be reasonable for prayer that every single person should pray for mercy by himself.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited. Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent.

Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does not cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah,Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does not cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence.

Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does not cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah,Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does not cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

Is the first ear obligated for peah? It is impossible to say that it obligated the entire field for peah and itself should be obligated for peah. If he cut the first ear and it was burned, does he have to cut another one a second time? Let us hear it from the following: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, or he sold what he had cut, if he cut half the field and dedicated what he had cut, he gives from the leftover for everything.” If it is dedicated is it not as if it was burned? This says that if he cut the first ear and it was burned, he does not have to cut a second time.

Is the first ear obligated for peah? It is impossible to say that it obligated the entire field for peah and itself should be obligated for peah. If he cut the first ear and it was burned, does he have to cut another one a second time? Let us hear it from the following: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, or he sold what he had cut, if he cut half the field and dedicated what he had cut, he gives from the leftover for everything.” If it is dedicated is it not as if it was burned? This says that if he cut the first ear and it was burned, he does not have to cut a second time.

Is the first ear obligated for peah? It is impossible to say that it obligated the entire field for peah and itself should be obligated for peah. If he cut the first ear and it was burned, does he have to cut another one a second time? Let us hear it from the following: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, or he sold what he had cut, if he cut half the field and dedicated what he had cut, he gives from the leftover for everything.” If it is dedicated is it not as if it was burned? This says that if he cut the first ear and it was burned, he does not have to cut a second time.

Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

MISHNAH: Forever he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. And he feeds domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl and is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. If a Cohen or a Levite bought all the grain of a threshing floor, the tithes belong to them until it was smoothed. He who dedicates to the Temple and then redeems is obligated for tithes unless it was smoothed by the Temple administrator.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap, it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap, it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap, it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet! But he is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah, if they cut for themselves, but if they cut for a Jew it is obligated. And we have formulated regarding this: One does not hire Gentile workers because they do not know about gleanings.

The Mishnah, if they cut to destroy it. But if they do not cut to destroy it, it is obligated. Rebbi Hoshaia ben Shammai said, even if you say that they do not cut to destroy it, it is free since peah is given from standing produce and real estate cannot be robbed.

Rebbi Phineas asked: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated, so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land.

Rebbi Phineas asked: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated, so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: “In patches it is obligated at the beginning and at the end.” What is “in patches?” Rebbi Jeremiah said, just as we have stated: “He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage.” Rebbi Yose said, for example nigella: If one sows it, it produces thin bulbs; if one plants seedlings, it produces large bulbs. For if it were not so, we would say because it is for sowing it should be freed from peah. But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it? It is finished and needs only to dry out.

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects ears for his dough in any quantity is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house, he is free from fallen berries, from orlah, from the fourth year, but he is obligated for gleanings. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe, one for those which are not fully ripe. Rebbi Yose said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose said only because of ownerless property. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Mana: Is abandoned property obligated for peah? He said to them: When he reacquired them one by one. But did we not state: Even though one with a large harvest will not store the mother-onions, one with only a small harvest will. Hence, the reason is only that he collects them for storing.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, a plot of a bet rova‘ is obligated for peah. Rebbi Joshua says, if its yield is two seah. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, six by six hand-breadths. Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra said, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time; practice follows his words.

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

If a Jew and a Gentile were partners in the standing grain, the part of the Jew is obligated but the part of the Gentile is free. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If it was divided up.

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated; in sheaves and redeemed in sheaves, it is obligated; standing and redeemed in sheaves it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. 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 finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated; in sheaves and redeemed in sheaves, it is obligated; standing and redeemed in sheaves it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. 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 finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated; in sheaves and redeemed in sheaves, it is obligated; standing and redeemed in sheaves it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. 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 finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated; in sheaves and redeemed in sheaves, it is obligated; standing and redeemed in sheaves it is free since at the time of obligation it was free. 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 finished, 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 it is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it for Rebbi Aqiba (after smoothing) [in a disagreement], or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

MISHNAH: He who collected peah and said: “This is for X, the poor man,” Rebbi Eliezer says, he made him acquire it; but the Sages say, he should give it to the first poor person he meets. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Non-Jew are obligated for tithes, except if the Non-Jew declared it to be abandoned property.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, even if he declared it abandoned property it is obligated. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, the Sages decreed special leniency for gleanings.

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

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: If he switches with the poor, what he receives is exempt but what the poor get is obligated. If two persons received a field as sharecroppers, one gives his part and his tithes of the poor to the other one, and vice-versa. He who receives a field to harvest is barred from its gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this so? When he received it for one-half, one third, or one quarter; but if he told him, one third of what you will harvest will be yours, he may take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah but not the tithes of the poor.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

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

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

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

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

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

“ Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

“ Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “ Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

Gufnān is šāmērāh. What is the difference between Judea and Galilee? Since one has a popular saying in Galilee: šāmērāh,šĕmar mārāh (its owner should watch it), would anybody compare it to spices? That means, in Galilee it is free but in Judea it is obligated.

Coriander is kusbārātā. What is the difference between Judea and Galilee? Since one has a popular saying in the South: Coriander is kusbārātā, would anybody compare it to spices? That means, in Galilee it is obligated but in Judea it is free.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

MISHNAH: He who buys as seeds or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub on vessels, is free from demay. From Akhzib and further he is free from demay. Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay. Sweet oil, the House of Shammai declare it obligated but the House of Hillel declare it free.

“Wine for eye medication, flour to make into wound dressing, are obligated if they are certain and one does not have to mention that they are under the rules of demay. They themselves are free if certain.” Here you say, free if certain, and there you say, free from demay. Here it disappears by itself, there it disappears when used.

“He who buys from a donkey caravan at Tyre and from the chest at Sidon is obligated.” Hence, from the donkey caravan at Sidon and from the chest at Tyre it is free. From a single donkey at Tyre. A donkey caravan that entered Tyre through Akhzib? Come and see, if it were standing at Akhziv it would be free, now that it entered Tyre would it be obligated?

“He who buys from a donkey caravan at Tyre and from the chest at Sidon is obligated.” Hence, from the donkey caravan at Sidon and from the chest at Tyre it is free. From a single donkey at Tyre. A donkey caravan that entered Tyre through Akhzib? Come and see, if it were standing at Akhziv it would be free, now that it entered Tyre would it be obligated?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Hillel freed only spikenard oil. Others say in the name of Rebbi Nathan, the House of Hillel obligated oil perfumed with rose or iris.

MISHNAH: With demay, one may make eruv, participate, recite grace, and recite grace in a group. One may separate it while naked or at twilight. And if one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable. The oil the weaver puts on his hands is obligated for demay, that which the carder puts on wool is free from demay.

“The oil that the weaver puts on his hands is obligated for demay, that which the carder puts on wool is free from demay.” What is the difference between one case and the other? The first disappears on his body, the latter disappears on the wool.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

“A Cohen who sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years can oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds. Mine forever, he cannot oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds.” There came a case before Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla and he obligated him to turn over to him one tenth of the reeds.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

This is the Mishnah: “Their tithes are tithes for each basket in the other one, he gave it a name,” because he declared both names at the same time. One after the other you accept only the very first version. Rebbi Abuna said, the Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about him who says “this heave substitutes for Second” (that he is guilty). “This animal instead of well-being offerings,” he is obligated for two since he declared two names at the same time; hence, one after the other you accept only the very first version. Not so, said Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav Huna: “This one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering,” he may retract that within the time for speech. That is, if he wants to retract, there if he wants to add. If one said, “this is heave,” even within the time of speech he cannot retract. A person can be asked about his dedication but nobody can be asked about his heave.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily. What is the reason? (Neh. 10:1) “In view of all this, we execute a contract and write, signed by our princes, Levites, and priests.” How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold (10:37): “The first-born of our cattle and flock”? Since they accepted upon themselves matters they were not obligated for, even matters they were obligated for are credited to them as if they were accepted voluntarily.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily. What is the reason? (Neh. 10:1) “In view of all this, we execute a contract and write, signed by our princes, Levites, and priests.” How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold (10:37): “The first-born of our cattle and flock”? Since they accepted upon themselves matters they were not obligated for, even matters they were obligated for are credited to them as if they were accepted voluntarily.

If one walks from Acco to Akhzib, to one’s right hand side and the East the road is pure regarding the land of Gentiles and is subject to tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be exempt. To one’s left and the West, the road is impure regarding the land of Gentiles and is free from tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be obligated, until one arrives at Akhzib; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, as far as Lablab. What is the status of Acco itself? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Immi: From two actions of Rebbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rebbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread; he asked them, how did you wash [the grains]? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water is in order. They thought, we will cook eggs and wash with the cooking water [because] they thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of egg fluid. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not render decisions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions are no instructions.

When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? Rebbi Simeon said, if the decision stands for forty days. Rebbi Jeremiah said, did we not hold it by error? Certainly it is immediately impure because of territory of the Gentiles! Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Is it not forbidden to go to Tyre and is the one who buys there not obligated? They voted to exempt it from tithes that you should not say the same in this case.

Rebbi Simon ben Laqish went to Bostra; they came to him and said to him: Select for us a man as preacher, judge, scribe, reader; one who will do everything we need. He selected a Babylonian and said to him, I have a good place for you. He went to Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, from Babylonia to Babylonia. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said from Babylonia to Babylonia, that means one who buys there is not obligated. But is it not forbidden to go to Tyre, and if one buys there is he not obligated? It was found stated: A sign for Ammon, Moab, and the Land of Egypt: There are two regions. From the first one eats and it may be worked, from the other one eats and it may not be worked. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to refer to (Deut. 4:43): “Beṣer in the prairie”. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is Beṣer Bostra?

Rebbi Simon ben Laqish went to Bostra; they came to him and said to him: Select for us a man as preacher, judge, scribe, reader; one who will do everything we need. He selected a Babylonian and said to him, I have a good place for you. He went to Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, from Babylonia to Babylonia. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said from Babylonia to Babylonia, that means one who buys there is not obligated. But is it not forbidden to go to Tyre, and if one buys there is he not obligated? It was found stated: A sign for Ammon, Moab, and the Land of Egypt: There are two regions. From the first one eats and it may be worked, from the other one eats and it may not be worked. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to refer to (Deut. 4:43): “Beṣer in the prairie”. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is Beṣer Bostra?

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask Rebbi Ḥaninah: What is the status of one who buys in Ammon and Moab? Rebbi Zeïra said, I asked this question before Rebbi Assi: Are not Ammon and Moab from Moses? Rebbi Mana asked this question before Rebbi Ḥaggai: Are not Ammon and Moab from Moses? Ammon and Moab are not from Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written (Num. 22:26): “For Ḥešbon is the city of Siḥon, the king of the Amorites.” Rebbi Simeon was not sure whether it was purified from the hand of Siḥon and Og or not. If you say it was purified it is obligated, if you say it was not purified it is free. Rebbi Tanḥuma said (Deut. 2:31): “Make profane for inheritance, to inherit his land.” I made his land profane before you.

“Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden.

“Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden.

Why did we not state “calamint, hyssop, and thyme” with them? That you should not say, these if guarded in the courtyard are obligated, those if guarded in the courtyard are free. But these and those if guarded in the courtyard are obligated; these if guarded in the garden plot are obligated, those if they are guarded in the garden plot are free. But these and those if guarded in the garden plot are free! Why did we state only these? That you should not say that since most of these kinds come from forbidden growth they all should be forbidden; therefore it is necessary to say they are permitted.

Why did we not state “calamint, hyssop, and thyme” with them? That you should not say, these if guarded in the courtyard are obligated, those if guarded in the courtyard are free. But these and those if guarded in the courtyard are obligated; these if guarded in the garden plot are obligated, those if they are guarded in the garden plot are free. But these and those if guarded in the garden plot are free! Why did we state only these? That you should not say that since most of these kinds come from forbidden growth they all should be forbidden; therefore it is necessary to say they are permitted.

Why did we not state “calamint, hyssop, and thyme” with them? That you should not say, these if guarded in the courtyard are obligated, those if guarded in the courtyard are free. But these and those if guarded in the courtyard are obligated; these if guarded in the garden plot are obligated, those if they are guarded in the garden plot are free. But these and those if guarded in the garden plot are free! Why did we state only these? That you should not say that since most of these kinds come from forbidden growth they all should be forbidden; therefore it is necessary to say they are permitted.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

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.

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.