obligation

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

With regard to those who made a vow of value: they take a pledge from them. With regard to those obligated to bring a hatat or asham: they do not take a pledge. With regard to those obligated to bring an olah or a shelamim: they do take a pledge. And even though he is not atoned for unless he is willing [to pay his obligation], as it is said: “willingly” (Leviticus 1:3), they coerce him until he says: I agree. The same is true in the case of divorce documents: they coerce him until he says: I agree.

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs one for her vow and one for her obligation. If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others. If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others. If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others. If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow, and two for her obligation and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats. Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold." In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.] Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders." But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."

[The metzora] put in his head inside and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the tip of his ear; [He put in] his hand and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the thumb of his hand. [He put in] his foot and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the big toe of his foot. Rabbi Judah says: he put in all three at the same time. If he had no thumb on his hand or no big toe on his foot or no right ear he could never become clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the blood] is applied to the place where they were. Rabbi Shimon says: if he applied it to the left side, the obligation has been fulfilled.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

"And a condition of doubt concerning sacrifices" if a woman has experienced five doubtful cases of miscarriage or five discharges of doubtful zivah she brings only one sacrifice and may then eat other sacrifices, she being under no obligation to bring the remainder.

The daughters of the Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle. And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood. However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature.

For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, "her discharge being blood in her body" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body.

MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah, until the end of the first night watch are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah, until the end of the first night watch are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

New Section. “Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn.” The statement of Rabban Gamliel is parallel to that of Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Sometimes a person reads the Shema‘ [twice], once before dawn and once at dawn, and has fulfilled his obligation for day and night.” Hence Rabban Gamliel is like Rebbi Simeon for evening prayers, is he also like him in the morning? His position might be that expressed by Rebbi Zeïra the Tanna, the brother of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, and of Rav Abba bar Ḥana: He who reads with the men of the Mishmar did not fulfill his duty because they were too early.

We have stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: It does not say “you shall see it” but “you shall see Him”. This tells you that anyone who keeps the obligation of tzitzit is as if he were admitted to the presence of God’s glory. This tells that tĕkhelet is similar to the sea. But the sea is similar to grasses, grasses are similar to the sky, the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, and the Throne is similar to sapphire, as it is written (Ez. 10:1): “I saw, and here by the spread that was on top of the Cherubim like sapphire stone, the looks of the form of the Throne.”

Some Tannaïm formulate: “Between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey.” But some Tannaïm formulate: “That a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him”. That is what we have to say that he who says between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey is parallel to him who says between dark blue and the color of leeks; he who says that a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him is parallel to him who says between dark blue and white. But they said that its preferred obligation is at sunrise so that one may join the mention of redemption to prayer and pray at daytime. Rebbi Zeïra said: I found the reason (Ps. 72:5): “They will fear You with the sun.” Mar Uqba said: The very religious were getting up early and reading the Shema‘ so that they could follow it directly at sunrise with the Amidah prayer.

There (Šabbat 1:2) we have stated: “One interrupts for the recitation of Shema‘ but one does not interrupt for prayer.” Rebbi Aḥa said: The recitation of Shema‘ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rebbi Abba said: The time for the recitation of the Shema‘ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rebbi Yose said: The recitation of Shema‘ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shema‘ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since they are so few, one will concentrate upon their meaning.

There (Šabbat 1:2) we have stated: “One interrupts for the recitation of Shema‘ but one does not interrupt for prayer.” Rebbi Aḥa said: The recitation of Shema‘ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rebbi Abba said: The time for the recitation of the Shema‘ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rebbi Yose said: The recitation of Shema‘ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shema‘ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since they are so few, one will concentrate upon their meaning.

Rebbi Ismael did formulate: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sages all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5): “If he says there is no obligation of Tefillin against the words of the Torah he is not criminally liable. If he says that Tefillin have five sections, to add to the words of the Sages, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets, since it is written (Micah 2:6): “Do not preach, they preach; Do not preach to those, that shame does not reach you.” And it is written (Micah 2:11) “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.” The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two of his palmatars to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήθιον, do not believe him. About the other one he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal, believe him without seal and σημαντήθιον. So about a prophet is written (Deut. 13:2) “He gives you a sign or miracle.” But here it is written (Deut. 17:11): “According to the teachings that they will teach you”.

Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But there is “redemption”. There is a difference since Rebbi Yoḥanan said: If he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Yose, objected before Rebbi Yose, but there is its ending. He said to him: there are two, one for the future and one for the past.

Rebbi Yose said: If you say that one needs to recite the benedictions; when he recited them he must focus his attention for the entire Shema‘. They objected: Does he not interrupt and it does not appear in our statement? So here also, even though it has not been stated he must recite the benedictions. That means, one must focus one’s attention for the entire Shema‘. We may hear it from the following: Rebbi Aḥai said in the name of Rebbi Yehudah: “He has fulfilled his obligation if he focussed his attention for the first paragraph, even though he did not focus his attention during recitation of the second paragraph”.

Bar Qappara said: One has to focus his attention only during the first three verses. It was stated thus: (Deut. 6:7) “You should repeat” until there is the obligation of focussed attention; from there starts the obligation of repetition.

Bar Qappara said: One has to focus his attention only during the first three verses. It was stated thus: (Deut. 6:7) “You should repeat” until there is the obligation of focussed attention; from there starts the obligation of repetition.

Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to Rav’s Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Zeiïa said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the first simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them.

Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to Rav’s Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Zeiïa said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the first simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them.

Rebbi Abbahu asked Rebbi Yoḥanan: Assuming that I am reciting Shema‘ and interrupting while passing by stinking passage ways, do I fulfill my obligation? He answered him: Abbahu my son, if you interrupt enough that you could have finished all of it, you did not fulfill your obligation.

Rebbi Abbahu asked Rebbi Yoḥanan: Assuming that I am reciting Shema‘ and interrupting while passing by stinking passage ways, do I fulfill my obligation? He answered him: Abbahu my son, if you interrupt enough that you could have finished all of it, you did not fulfill your obligation.

Rebbi Eleazar went to pay a sick-bed visit to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba. He said to him: Since I am weak, when I am reciting Shema‘ I tend to slumber; do I fulfill my obligation? He said to him: yes. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Did Rebbi Eleazar give this ruling since he knew that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba is very scrupulous in the execution of his religious duties, or because he was so weak? He answered him: They disagree explicitly; Rebbi Eleazar said he fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yoḥanan said he did not fulfill his obligation. They disagree for the recitation of Shema‘ since that is composed of separate chapters, but for the recitation of Hallel and the Esther scroll, Rebbi Eleazar will agree.

Rebbi Eleazar went to pay a sick-bed visit to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba. He said to him: Since I am weak, when I am reciting Shema‘ I tend to slumber; do I fulfill my obligation? He said to him: yes. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Did Rebbi Eleazar give this ruling since he knew that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba is very scrupulous in the execution of his religious duties, or because he was so weak? He answered him: They disagree explicitly; Rebbi Eleazar said he fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yoḥanan said he did not fulfill his obligation. They disagree for the recitation of Shema‘ since that is composed of separate chapters, but for the recitation of Hallel and the Esther scroll, Rebbi Eleazar will agree.

Rebbi Eleazar went to pay a sick-bed visit to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba. He said to him: Since I am weak, when I am reciting Shema‘ I tend to slumber; do I fulfill my obligation? He said to him: yes. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Did Rebbi Eleazar give this ruling since he knew that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba is very scrupulous in the execution of his religious duties, or because he was so weak? He answered him: They disagree explicitly; Rebbi Eleazar said he fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yoḥanan said he did not fulfill his obligation. They disagree for the recitation of Shema‘ since that is composed of separate chapters, but for the recitation of Hallel and the Esther scroll, Rebbi Eleazar will agree.

How does one make the benedictions on them? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Idi: When he puts tefillin on his arm, what does he say: “Praised Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about the obligation of tefillin.” When he puts them on his head, what does he say? “Praised Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about the obligation of putting on tefillin.” When he takes them off, what does he say? “Praised Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to obey His laws.” That follows the opinion that the verse speaks about the law of tefillin. However, according to those who say that the verse speaks about the law of Passover, that does not apply.

How does one make the benedictions on them? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Idi: When he puts tefillin on his arm, what does he say: “Praised Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about the obligation of tefillin.” When he puts them on his head, what does he say? “Praised Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about the obligation of putting on tefillin.” When he takes them off, what does he say? “Praised Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to obey His laws.” That follows the opinion that the verse speaks about the law of tefillin. However, according to those who say that the verse speaks about the law of Passover, that does not apply.

MISHNAH: He who recited the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear, (Rebbi Yehudah says that) he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and was not exact in its letters, Rebbi Yose says that he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yehudah says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. He who reads backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and made a mistake then he should return to the place of the mistake.

MISHNAH: He who recited the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear, (Rebbi Yehudah says that) he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and was not exact in its letters, Rebbi Yose says that he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yehudah says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. He who reads backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and made a mistake then he should return to the place of the mistake.

MISHNAH: He who recited the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear, (Rebbi Yehudah says that) he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and was not exact in its letters, Rebbi Yose says that he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yehudah says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. He who reads backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and made a mistake then he should return to the place of the mistake.

MISHNAH: He who recited the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear, (Rebbi Yehudah says that) he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and was not exact in its letters, Rebbi Yose says that he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yehudah says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. He who reads backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and made a mistake then he should return to the place of the mistake.

MISHNAH: He who recited the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear, (Rebbi Yehudah says that) he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and was not exact in its letters, Rebbi Yose says that he has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yehudah says that he has not fulfilled his obligation. He who reads backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited and made a mistake then he should return to the place of the mistake.

It was stated: “He who did pray and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments”, your ears should hear what your mouth says.

It was stated: “He who did pray and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments”, your ears should hear what your mouth says.

It was stated: “He who did pray and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments”, your ears should hear what your mouth says.

New Section.He who reads backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Jonah said that Rav Naḥman bar Ada stated, Rebbi Yose said that Naḥman the Old stated, (Deut. 6:6) “They shall be”, they shall be unaltered. We have stated: The same holds for Hallel and the reading of the Esther scroll.

Clarification. Rebbi Miasha and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting and eating in one of the upper synagogues. There came the time of prayer and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac got up to pray. Rebbi Miasha said to him: Teacher, did you not teach us that once one started one does not interrupt. And Ḥizkiah stated: Every one who is free from an obligation and does it anyway is called uneducated. He answered him: Did we not state: “The bridegroom is free?” The bridegroom, if he wants. He answered him: Is that not from Rabban Gamliël? He said to him, I can free myself as Rabban Gamliel did; Rabban Gamliel said: I shall not listen to you to lift from me the Kingdom of Heaven.

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.

Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the king. When king Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

When Rebbi Judah the Prince died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Nahoraï, the sister of Rebbi Judah the prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa said, in their death they made them like a corpse of obligation.

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.

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.

There we have stated: Rabban Gamliel says, the reader frees the public from their obligation. The older Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel for the prayer accompanying the blowing of the Shofar. Rebbi Zeïra and Rav Ḥisda were sitting there for the blowing of the Shofar. After they finished the prayer, Rav Ḥisda got up and prayed. Rebbi Zeïra said to him: Did we not pray just now? He said to him, I prayed and I am repeating the prayer, because Westerners came down and said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel for the prayer accompanying the blowing of the Shofar, but I was inattentive. If I had been attentive, I would have fulfilled my duty. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is fine. All Tannaïm state it in the name of Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Hoshaia states it in the name of the Sages. Rebbi Ada from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: This is only if he attended from the start. Rebbi Tanḥum said, the Mishnah expresses this: The order of benediction, one says “Forefathers”, “Greatness”, and “Sanctification of the Name”.

MISHNAH: If he pronounced the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation, on fruits of the soil “Creator of the fruit of the tree”, he has not fulfilled his obligation. On all of them if he pronounced “everything was created”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

MISHNAH: If he pronounced the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation, on fruits of the soil “Creator of the fruit of the tree”, he has not fulfilled his obligation. On all of them if he pronounced “everything was created”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

MISHNAH: If he pronounced the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the soil” on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation, on fruits of the soil “Creator of the fruit of the tree”, he has not fulfilled his obligation. On all of them if he pronounced “everything was created”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a baraita disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace.” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar, “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said, “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written (Deut.8:10): You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise, that is the benediction of invitation; the Eternal, your God, that is “He Who feeds all”; for the Land, that is the benediction over the Land; the good one, that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says (Deut. 3:25) “this good mountain and the Lebanon”]; that He gave you, that is “He Who is good and does good”.

Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, a Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:8) states this: The absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation.

Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, a Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:8) states this: The absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation.

Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, a Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:8) states this: The absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation.

Rebbi Abba bar Zamina waited upon Zeïra and mixed him a cup. He said to him: Old man, make the benediction, and have the intention of drinking another one, as we have stated: The waiter makes a benediction for every single cup but not for every morsel. He answered him: Just as I have the intention of absolving you of your obligation by the benediction so you must have the intention of absolving me of my obligation by “Amen”. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, a Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:8) states this: The absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation and he who heard from the absent-minded did not fulfill his obligation.

Peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure. First fruits and appearance have neither minimum nor maximum measures. There are those who state: Peah, first fruits and appearance have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum. What is the difference between them, is it not one in sixty? According to him who says that peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure: What he gave, he gave; if he had second thoughts and added to it, it is subject to tithes until he makes up for it. According to him who says peah, first fruits and appearance sacrifices have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum: What he gave already freed from the obligation; if he has second thoughts and adds, that is subject to tithes.

They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand.

They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov.5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully all which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them will life come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away the mother. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for something that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov.30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is still standing. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is cut. What is his intention, to free his field from the obligation or not? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He may always add. What are we talking about? If it is his intention to free his field from the obligation, it already has been freed. So we must speak about the case where it is not his intention to free his field from the obligation!

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is still standing. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is cut. What is his intention, to free his field from the obligation or not? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He may always add. What are we talking about? If it is his intention to free his field from the obligation, it already has been freed. So we must speak about the case where it is not his intention to free his field from the obligation!

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is still standing. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is cut. What is his intention, to free his field from the obligation or not? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He may always add. What are we talking about? If it is his intention to free his field from the obligation, it already has been freed. So we must speak about the case where it is not his intention to free his field from the obligation!

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.

MISHNAH: A field harvested by Gentiles or robbers, undermined by ants, ruined by a storm or animals, is free. If he harvested half of it and robbers harvested the other half, it is free since the obligation of produce is when it is standing. If robbers cut half of it and he harvested the other half, he must give peah from what he cut. If he harvested half and sold half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half and dedicated half, he who redeemed it from the treasurer gives peah for everything.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation.

What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

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

Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: If he reserved movables, he did not do anything. Come and look: If he reserved any real estate, he has something to live on; if he reserved gems and pearls, does he have nothing to live on? Rebbi Yose said, this man knows that the gift of a bedridden person transfers property rights even verbally. Why did he write it with an obligation of acquisition, in order to give it the status of a gift by a healthy person.

Is it not connected? He calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree. If you say not from standing produce, he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, the removal is charged to the poor. If you say he calls it by the name peah when it is taken down, the removal is the obligation of the owner. But even if you say that he calls it by the name peah when it is on the tree, they charge the owner with taking it down because of the danger.

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.

What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the obligation of the field did come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.

What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the obligation of the field did come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Garlic from Baalbek, onions from Rikhpah, split beans from Cilicia, and Egyptian lentils.” Because these kinds also grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages had to attach marks to them. “But filberts, pistachios, and pine nuts, since these kinds do not grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages did not have to attach marks to them.” Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is the opposite regarding the obligation of these kinds; since these kinds do not grow outside of the Land, the Sages had to enumerate them. But is there not fig cake from Bosra? It is pounded. But dates from Alexandria? They are thin. But carob from Kiari? It is cut. But rice from the Ḥolata? It has more numerous kernels and is reddish. But cumin from Cyprus? It is curved.

Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, he agrees here that he may acquire property rights. Rebbi Abba said, in order to eat its fruits. Did we not state: “The buyer brings First Fruits for the good of the world.” Why does he not bring it as a Biblical obligation?

HALAKHAH: : There, we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so: “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

“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.

A man was suspected of [trading in] Sabbatical [produce]. He said to his wife, take ḥallah. She said to him, that man is suspected of Sabbatical [trading], and you say, take ḥallah? He said to her, ḥallah is [an obligation] from the Torah, the Sabbatical is from Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel instituted prozbol. But following him who says tithes] are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person]? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. As we have stated (Deut. 15:2): “this is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “[All its] inhabitants.” In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile. If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

Who needs this? Rebbi Yose! Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? What we had stated there: “He who did read the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and does not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all commandments of the Torah. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments and keep all His basic laws”; your ears should hear what your mouth says.

Who needs this? Rebbi Yose! Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? What we had stated there: “He who did read the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and does not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all commandments of the Torah. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments and keep all His basic laws”; your ears should hear what your mouth says.