orlah

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

“ ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fulness, the fulness.” Just as “the fulness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fulness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ‘orlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.

“ ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fulness, the fulness.” Just as “the fulness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fulness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ‘orlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.

So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision.

So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision.

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

“A seah of heave which fell into 100.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not “into 100” but “into 99.” “A seah of ‘orlah which fell into 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not “into 200” but “into 199.”

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

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

HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (Deut. 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled. For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written, a prohibition to eat is written, a prohibition to remove it is not written.

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

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

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

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rebbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, ‘orlah does not always apply.

MISHNAH: A doubtful case of ‘orlah in the Land of Israel is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land one goes and buys on condition he not see the harvesting being done. If a vineyard is planted with vegetables and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land he goes and harvests on condition he not harvest with his own hands. New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah, ‘orlah from practice, and kilaim by rabbinic decree.

MISHNAH: A doubtful case of ‘orlah in the Land of Israel is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land one goes and buys on condition he not see the harvesting being done. If a vineyard is planted with vegetables and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land he goes and harvests on condition he not harvest with his own hands. New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah, ‘orlah from practice, and kilaim by rabbinic decree.

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

“New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer’s as we have stated there: “Any commandment not connected with the Land applies both inside and outside the Land. But any connected with the Land applies only inside the Land except for ‘orlah and kilaim. Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Everywhere, (Lev. 23:14) “in all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported.

“ ‘Orlah from practice”. Samuel said, practice of the country. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice from Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Assi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice from Moses on Sinai, and you say so? He said, when practice was proclaimed, it was given in this way. He said, if I had come to the Land of Israel only to hear this it would have been been enough for me.

MISHNAH: A citron follows the rules of trees in three aspects and those of vegetables in one. It follows the rules of trees in ‘orlah, the fourth year, and the Sabbatical, and those for vegetables in that the moment it is harvested determines its tithe, the words of Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Eliezer says, it follows the rules of trees in all respects.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written, a prohibition to eat is written, [“do not eat”], a prohibition to remove it is not written.

HALAKHAH: From where that one may feed him fig cake and raisins of heave? From this: They gave him a slice of fig cake and two raisins. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the twenty-four esronot which David ate, he ate in hunger. This happened to Rebbi Joḥanan and he ate everything which happened to be before him. They quoted about him, wisdom revives its possessor. It was stated: “One feeds him the least forbidden. Carcass meat or heave, one feeds him heave. Ṭevel and sabbatical produce, one feeds him Šabbatical produce.” Ḥallah and ˋorlah is problematic. Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Rebbi Ba: Heave is a deadly sin, carcass meat a prohibition, and you are saying so? Following him who said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily..

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up etrog is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. Of `orlah, it is disqualified. Of impure heave, it is disqualified; of pure one should not take but if he took it is qualified. Of demay, the House of Shammai disqualify but the House of Hillel qualify; of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is qualified.

That is what is written, it was in the second year in the second month on the twentieth of the month, etc. And it is written, they travelled from the Eternal’s mountain a distance of three days. Rebbi Zacharia, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi: {a parable} like children who are freed from <school> (books) and leave to run. On that very day they desired a desire; up to a month, until it will come out of your noses. And the seven days of Miriam; Miriam was secluded outside the camp. And the 40 days of the scouts, they returned from scouting the Land at the end of 40 days. They walked and came to Moses and Aaron etc. They came and found them occupied with the rules for ḥallah and orlah. They said to them, you are not going to enter the Land and you are studying the rules for ḥallah and orlah? Immediately, the entire congregation raised their voices; the people cried in that night. He said to them, you cried before Me a pointless crying. By My life, in the future you shall cry a substantial crying. Crying she will cry in the night. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: It is written, Moses heard the people crying for its families, etc. About the six incest prohibitions which Moses forbade them.

That is what is written, it was in the second year in the second month on the twentieth of the month, etc. And it is written, they travelled from the Eternal’s mountain a distance of three days. Rebbi Zacharia, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi: {a parable} like children who are freed from <school> (books) and leave to run. On that very day they desired a desire; up to a month, until it will come out of your noses. And the seven days of Miriam; Miriam was secluded outside the camp. And the 40 days of the scouts, they returned from scouting the Land at the end of 40 days. They walked and came to Moses and Aaron etc. They came and found them occupied with the rules for ḥallah and orlah. They said to them, you are not going to enter the Land and you are studying the rules for ḥallah and orlah? Immediately, the entire congregation raised their voices; the people cried in that night. He said to them, you cried before Me a pointless crying. By My life, in the future you shall cry a substantial crying. Crying she will cry in the night. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: It is written, Moses heard the people crying for its families, etc. About the six incest prohibitions which Moses forbade them.

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

“I did not vow as a nazir,” he is permitted. “I already had been a nazir,” he is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Avina, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am like ‘orlah juice, he did not say anything. The colleagues say, that follows Rebbi Simeon in a disagreement. As we have stated there: “If somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling things, he is guilty. But Rebbi Simeon declares him free from prosecution.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if it is an inclusive statement. But if it is a detailed statement, everybody agrees that no oath can be applied to prohibitions. And here, we consider an inclusive statement. Rebbi Yudan said, one is about vows, the other about oaths. Vows can be applied to prohibitions but no oaths can be applied to prohibitions.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

MISHNAH: Any commandment which does not refer to the Land is obligatory both in the Land and outside the Land. But any commandment which does refer to the Land is obligatory only in the Land, except ‘orlah and kilaim. Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.

MISHNAH: If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah, or kilaim of a vineyard, or an ox sentenced to be stoned, or a calf whose neck was broken, or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease, the hair of a nazir, or the first-born of a she-ass, or meat cooked in milk, or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct, [the woman] is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.

HALAKHAH: “If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah, or kilaim of a vineyard,” etc. The first-born of a she-ass, Rebbi Eleazar said, may be used to preliminarily marry a woman; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it may not be used to preliminarily marry a woman. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first-born of a she-ass may be used to preliminarily marry a woman by an argument de minore ad majus. Since you say that a firstling, whose prohibition cannot be lifted during its lifetime, can be used to preliminarily marry a woman, this one, whose prohibition can be lifted during its lifetime, not so much more? What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and redeemed it without the knowledge of its owner. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not redeemed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is redeemed. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees with him. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody steals the first-born of another person’s she-ass, he has to pay double restitution. The end disagrees with him: For even though he has no interest in it now he will later. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman. Rebbi Eleazar explained that, after breaking of [the foal’s] neck. For Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that after its neck was broken it cannot be redeemed.

Rav Huna said, if it swept them away in their earth. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the years of ‘orlah are their dispute.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the years of ‘orlah are in dispute between them.

If an ‘orlah walnut was planted or an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Yasa said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, did not Rebbi [Joḥanan] say it is permitted, does he not redeem it as from the time it is sown? There came Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given) correctly.

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : As for the caper-bush which is still in a state of 'Orlah outside the [Holy] Land, one throws away the berries but eats the buds ; that is to say, the berries are fruit but not the buds. Against this [deduction] I quote : ln the case of the various kinds of capers, over the leaves and their young shoots one says "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but over the berries and buds "...Who createst the fruit of the tree!"

Then let him say : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba outside the Land; for everyone who takes the lenient view within the Land, the Halakah is in accord with him outside the Land ! If he had stated that, I might have said : This applies to the tithe of trees which within the Land is a Rabbinical ordinance ; but with regard to 'Orlah, which within the Land is ordained by the Torah, I must suppose that likewise outside the Land we must apply it ! Therefore he informs us.

Rabina found Mar b. Rab Ashe throwing away the berries and eating the caper-buds. He said to him : What is thy opinion — like R. 'Akiba's who takes the lenient view? Then let the master act in accord with Bet Shammai who take a still more lenient view. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the caper-bush. Bet Shammai say : It constitutes Kila'im in a vineyard ; but Bet Hillel say : It does not. Both, however, admit that it is subject to 'Orlah.

This is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "In the case of the caper-bush, Bet Shammai say : It constitutes Kila'im in a vineyard" — hence it is a kind of vegetable ! It then goes on to state, "Both, however, admit that it is subject to 'Orlah" — hence it is a kind of tree!

There is no contradiction; for Bet Shammai, being in doubt, take the stricter view in both cases. Nevertheless Bet Shammai have a doubt whether it is subject to 'Orlah; and we have a Mishnaic teaching: Where there is a doubt [whether a thing is subject to] 'Orlah — in the Land of Israel it is prohibited [to be used], in Syria it is permitted, and outside the Land one may go down and buy it,

There is no contradiction; for Bet Shammai, being in doubt, take the stricter view in both cases. Nevertheless Bet Shammai have a doubt whether it is subject to 'Orlah; and we have a Mishnaic teaching: Where there is a doubt [whether a thing is subject to] 'Orlah — in the Land of Israel it is prohibited [to be used], in Syria it is permitted, and outside the Land one may go down and buy it,

Abbai quoted in objection: The top-piece of a pomegranate is reckoned in but not the blossom; and since it is stated that the blossom is not reckoned in, conclude that it is not food. And we have a Mishnaic teaching with reference to 'Orlah : The skins of the pomegranate and its blossom, and the shells of nuts and the kernels are subject to 'Orlah !

Abbai quoted in objection: The top-piece of a pomegranate is reckoned in but not the blossom; and since it is stated that the blossom is not reckoned in, conclude that it is not food. And we have a Mishnaic teaching with reference to 'Orlah : The skins of the pomegranate and its blossom, and the shells of nuts and the kernels are subject to 'Orlah !

But it is not so ! For Rab Nahman has said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha : The calyces surrounding dates are forbidden because of 'Orlah, since they are the protection of the fruit ; and when are they the protection of the fruit? In the early stages [of the fruit's growth], then are they called the protection of the fruit !

The Halakah is according to Mar b. Rab Ashe who threw away the berries and ate the buds ; and since these are not regarded as fruit for the purpose of 'Orlah, they are likewise not so regarded for the purpose of the benediction. We accordingly utter over them not "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" but "...Who createst the fruit of the ground."

It is quoted in objection : R. Meir has declared : From the statement of Scripture, "Ye shall deem it an uncircumcision with its fruit" (Lev. xix. 23), do I not know that a food-bearing tree is intended ? Why, then, is there a teaching to tell us "trees for food" (ibid.)? To include a tree whose wood and fruit taste alike. And which is that? Pepper ; to teach thee that pepper is subject to 'Orlah, and to teach thee that the Land of Israel lacks nothing ; as it is said, "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it" (Deut. viii. 9)!

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

Say that it is pepper, as it has been taught: R. Meir used to say, From that which it says, "And you have planted all manner of trees," (Leviticus 19:23) do I not know that the reference is to a tree for food? What then does Scripture teach by "for food"? A tree whose fruit and wood taste the same. Say then that it is pepper. This is to teach you that the pepper tree is subject to the law of orlah and that the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said, "You shall not lack anything in it"?

If from an asherah or from a condemned city, it is invalid. What is the reason? Since it is condemned to be burned, [it is considered as though] its minimum size is destroyed. If from orlah, it is invalid.

It is like a tree in three respects, as regards the laws of orlah, of the Fourth Year, and of the Seventh Year; and like a vegetable in one respect