permits

This is a baraita: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

MISHNAH: He who buys from the baker may tithe from the warm on the cold and from the cold on the warm, even from many types, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah forbids it; I say that the wheat of yesterday was from one source and today’s is from another. Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

MISHNAH: If a proselyte and a Gentile inherited from their Gentile father, the proselyte may say, take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce. After they came into the proselyte’s possession, this is forbidden. He who sells produce in Syria and says: ‘They are from the Land of Israel,’ must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. ‘They are from my field,’ he must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If it is known that he has a field in Syria, he must tithe.

MISHNAH: If a proselyte and a Gentile inherited from their Gentile father, the proselyte may say, take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce. After they came into the proselyte’s possession, this is forbidden. He who sells produce in Syria and says: ‘They are from the Land of Israel,’ must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. ‘They are from my field,’ he must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If it is known that he has a field in Syria, he must tithe.

MISHNAH: One does not bring a tree on a tree, a vegetable on a vegetable, and neither a tree on a vegetable nor a vegetable on a tree. Rebbi Jehudah permits vegetable on tree.

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: If someone plants two rows of green melons, two rows of pumpkin, two rows of Egyptian beans, this is permitted. One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans is forbidden. One row each of melons, pumpkin, Egyptian beans, and one row of melons, Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages forbid. One may plant melon and pumpkin in the same hole on condition that one of them points to one side, the other to the other side. (One plants so that the hair of one be here, the hair of the other one there, for what the Sages forbade is only because of the misleading impression.)

Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion that just as two kinds join together to save so they do join together to prohibit. Our Mishnah supports Rebbi Yannai, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer permits it.” Our Mishnah differs with Rav: “One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans, and one row of melons.” Before he started the fourth one, was it not already forbidden? Explain it that he planted the four rows simultaneously.

MISHNAH: One dirties saplings, ties them, clips them, builds them shelter, and waters them until the New Year. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq says, one may water the leaves in the Sabbatical year but not the stem. One rubs unripe figs and pricks them until the New Year. One may not rub or prick unripe figs entering the Sabbatical year, or those of the Sabbatical year leaving it. Rebbi Jehudah says, at a place where people usually rub them, one may not rub them because that is agricultural work, but in a place where one does not usually rub, he may do so. Rebbi Simeon permits it for a tree since one may work a tree.

“ One does not start a fire in reed thickets because that is [agricultural] work. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits it. Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, one may plant a useless tree in the Sabbatical year. One teaches a cow to plough only in dunes; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is permitted also in somebody else’s field on condition that one not make parallel furrows.”

May one spice Sabbatical wine? Let us hear from the following: “The Sabbatical admits the additional leniency that its [oil] may be used for lighting”; that means it is permitted. But did we not state that it is forbidden? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, since Rebbi Jehudah permits it because it enhances its value.

Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Why should it belong to the practices of obfuscation? I say that at a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. Rebbi Mana said: Does there exist obfuscation for prohibition? Is bread not like Gentile cooking? So we say: At a place where no Jewish cooking is to be found it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. But so it was: At a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden, but they obfuscated the matter and permitted it as a necessity of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [hold] with the one who permits, but only from a store. But one does not follow this.

It was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who saidthat washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life. Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

MISHNAH: One may not cook Sabbatical vegetables in heave oil because it should not be made unusable. Rebbi Simeon permits it. Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden.

It was stated: One may not use Sabbatical oil to caulk an oven or a hearth; one does not use it to rub on shoes and sandals. Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai was travelling in the Sabbatical when he saw somebody collecting Sabbatical [produce]. He said to him, is this not forbidden, is that not spontaneous growth? He said to him, are not you the one who permits it? He said to him, are not my colleagues disagreeing with me? He read for him (Eccl. 10:8): “He who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake.” That is what happened to him.

MISHNAH: One eats based on what is abandoned but not on what is guarded. Rebbi Yose says, also on what is guarded. One eats because of swollen fruit and because of a second crop, but not on winter growth. Rebbi Jehudah permits it on condition that they brought first fruits before the end of the summer.

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. It was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.

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

MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.

There, we have stated: “If fish improved in value when cooked with leeks of second tithe, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, that Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.”

“If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose permits it. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Just as Rebbi Yose says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.

MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rebbi Meїr forbids and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.

MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rebbi Meїr forbids and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.

Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden.

MISHNAH: One does not put a fig cake or figs into muries because he would destroy them but one may add wine to muries. One does not use olive oil as base for perfume but one may use wine as base for ὀινόμελι. One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes it; Rebbi Jehudah permits it because he improves it.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.

There, we have stated: “The center parts of water melon and what is cleaned from vegetables of heave, Rebbi Dosa permits to laymen but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They taught that only for what is cleaned from vegetables of gardeners. But for what is cleaned from vegetables of private people, even the rabbis will agree. Rebbi Abun asked: Is it not reasonable that this refers only to the Great Heave, but for heave of the tithe torn-off leaves do not count for leaves, neither do torn-off stems for stems?

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.

“One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meїr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose from Sidon asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, does practice not follow Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, it is from the preceding paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says similar to these two, Rebbi Yose says similar to those two, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice follows Rebbi Yose.

MISHNAH: The round fig cake when he smoothes it. One may smoothe ṭevel figs and grapes, Rebbi Jehudah forbids it. If one smoothes grapes they are not prepared; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are prepared. Dried figs when he presses them and in a bin if he planes with a roller. If, while he presses in an amphora or planes in a bin, the amphora broke or the bin collapsed, he may not eat from the contents as a snack, but Rebbi Yose permits it.

MISHNAH: Fruits from which he gave heave before they were completely processed, Rebbi Eliezer prohibits to eat snacks from them but the Sages permit it except for harvesting-baskets of figs. Rebbi Simeon permits from a harvesting-basket of figs from which heave was taken but the Sages forbid. If somebody says to another person, here take this as and give me five figs for it, he should not eat before he tithed, the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he eats them singly he is free, if he takes them together he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah said, there is a story that a rose garden was in Jerusalem whose figs were sold three or four for an as and nobody ever gave heave and tithes for them.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: A person should not sell his field. Rebbi Simeon permits since he may say to him, I sold mine, go and demand what is yours. If he transgressed and sold, he tithes what he eats but he does not have to tithe for what he sold since we are not responsible for the dishonest.

“If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, it follows Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.” The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rebbi Jehudah? Rebbi Jehudah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.

Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Why should it belong to the practices of obfuscation? Do I say that at a place where Jewish bread is available, Gentile bread should be forbidden but they obfuscated about it and permitted it or that at a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. Rebbi Mana said: Does there exist obfuscation for prohibition? Is bread not like Gentile cooking? So we say: At a place where no Jewish cooking is to be found it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. But so it was: At a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden, but they obfuscated the matter and permitted it as a necessity of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [hold] with the one who permits, but only from a store. But we do not follow this.

MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul, leftover, or impure, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?

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

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 23:14): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

“If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing, cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.

“If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing, cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.

“If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing, cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.

“If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing, cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.

Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said (Lev. 214): “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal.” This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ‘omer comes and permits it. Do we not hold before cutting? In addition, from the following which was stated: “If somebody weeds on the thirteenth and a stalk remains in his hand, he should replant it in a moist spot but not a dry one.” Here you have the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, and part of a day is counted as whole.

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

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: He harvests three bunches and permits. The position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted! There, he said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened, one hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden to open them. And here, he says so? There in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, here in the name of Ḥizqiah. They say there in the name of Ḥizqiah: He opens three amphoras and permits; one follows Ḥizqiah here.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: He harvests three bunches and permits. The position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted! There, he said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened, one hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden to open them. And here, he says so? There in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, here in the name of Ḥizqiah. They say there in the name of Ḥizqiah: He opens three amphoras and permits; one follows Ḥizqiah here.

So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven? Let us hear from the following: (Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”.

So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven? Let us hear from the following: (Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”.

It is obvious that his knowledge permits it. Does the knowledge of a third person permit it? How is this possible? He is not aware of it; another person is aware of it.

Does uncertain knowledge permit like certain knowledge? How is this? If there were two boxes before him, one containing 200 and one less than 200. If one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which one it fell and then [another seah] fell into the second. It was measured and found to be 202. If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted. If there was one chest and there is a doubt whether it contains 200 or not; if one seah of heave fell into [some box] but it is not known whether it fell into that box or not, and then a second time something [forbidden] fell into [the box in question]: If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted.

Does uncertain knowledge permit like certain knowledge? How is this? If there were two boxes before him, one containing 200 and one less than 200. If one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which one it fell and then [another seah] fell into the second. It was measured and found to be 202. If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted. If there was one chest and there is a doubt whether it contains 200 or not; if one seah of heave fell into [some box] but it is not known whether it fell into that box or not, and then a second time something [forbidden] fell into [the box in question]: If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

HALAKHAH: “If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he dedicated them before Tabernacles and Tabernacles passed, he brings and does not make the declaration. If he dedicated them before Ḥanukkah and Ḥanukkah passed, they will rot. After Ḥanukkah they do not become holy. Rebbi Zeïra will not accept this of the colleagues; Rebbi Zeïra is of the opinion that all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Do the colleagues not accept this? They accept it; if he dedicated before Tabernacles intending to bring them after Tabernacles. Did we not state: One may not bring First Fruits from the new crop for the old, nor from the old for the new. Where do we hold? If about produce which was one third ripe before New Year’s Day for produce which was not one third ripe before New Year’s Day, since it was not one third ripe before New Year’s Day it is obvious that it did not form roots before the ‘omer and will be forbidden until the coming ‘omer permits it. But we must deal with fruits [from trees] which budded before the fifteenth of Šebaṭ for fruits which budded after the fifteenth of Šebaṭ; because that would be from new for old. Therefore, from new for new one may bring. We thought to say that one speaks of the time after Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in its time.

MISHNAH: Some rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave since tithe and First Fruits need to be brought to the Place; they need a declaration and are forbidden to the current mourner, but Rebbi Simeon permits. They are subject to removal, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation. They forbid in Jerusalem the most minute amount to be eaten by the unauthorized and animals; Rebbi Simeon permits. These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.

MISHNAH: Some rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave since tithe and First Fruits need to be brought to the Place; they need a declaration and are forbidden to the current mourner, but Rebbi Simeon permits. They are subject to removal, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation. They forbid in Jerusalem the most minute amount to be eaten by the unauthorized and animals; Rebbi Simeon permits. These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.

So is the Mishnah: “They forbid in Jerusalem in the most minute amount; Rebbi Simeon permits. Their growth in Jerusalem is forbidden to be eaten and Rebbi Simeon permits. Also by the unauthorized or by animals does Rebbi Simeon permit.” Do not the rabbis agree with him since he asked them: Do you not agree that if they are permitted for the unauthorized, they are permitted as animal feed? Does one need walls for unauthorized eating or for feeding animals? Just as one does not need walls for unauthorized eating, one does not need walls for feeding animals! The rabbis say, they made Jerusalem something which has no possibility to become permitted. Anything which has no possibility to become permitted prohibits in the most minute amounts; similarly, Jerusalem prohibits in the most minute amounts.

So is the Mishnah: “They forbid in Jerusalem in the most minute amount; Rebbi Simeon permits. Their growth in Jerusalem is forbidden to be eaten and Rebbi Simeon permits. Also by the unauthorized or by animals does Rebbi Simeon permit.” Do not the rabbis agree with him since he asked them: Do you not agree that if they are permitted for the unauthorized, they are permitted as animal feed? Does one need walls for unauthorized eating or for feeding animals? Just as one does not need walls for unauthorized eating, one does not need walls for feeding animals! The rabbis say, they made Jerusalem something which has no possibility to become permitted. Anything which has no possibility to become permitted prohibits in the most minute amounts; similarly, Jerusalem prohibits in the most minute amounts.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

MISHNAH: A person may not pierce an eggshell, fill it with oil, and put it over a light so it should drip even if it is made from clay; Rebbi Jehudah permits it. But if the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted. A person may not fill a bowl with oil, put it next to a light and dip the end of the wick into it so it should draw; Rebbi Jehudah permits it.

MISHNAH: A person may not pierce an eggshell, fill it with oil, and put it over a light so it should drip even if it is made from clay; Rebbi Jehudah permits it. But if the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted. A person may not fill a bowl with oil, put it next to a light and dip the end of the wick into it so it should draw; Rebbi Jehudah permits it.

“If the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted since it is one vessel.” There is a difference because all is one, if he combined it by lime or gypsum. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection. It was stated: One wick in two cups, in two pots, in two trays is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection.

MISHNAH: One may not put an egg next to the hot water container to make it soft boiled and he may not break it on tissue, but Rebbi Yose permits. One should not bury it in dust of roads that it should be roasted. What the people of Tiberias did was to divert a jet of cold water into a canal of hot water. The Sages told them if this is on a Sabbath this is like hot water which was heated on the Sabbath; it is forbidden for washing and drinking. But if it is on a holiday it is like water heated on the holiday; it is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. From a cleaned-out cooking vessel one drinks on the Sabbath; from an Antiochean vessel one does not drink even if it is cleaned out.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One may not put an egg next to the hot water container,” etc. There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose permits it. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Rebbi Yose follows his own opinion. Just as he says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.

It was stated: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Rebbi Marius said, if he did not remove his hand from it. But if he removed it it is forbidden. An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken. Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus said, in any case he can stick in a spit or a knife and take it. This [statement] of Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.”

But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? He explains “the Sabbatical year” following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here you say so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the Sabbatical year and the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Also we have stated for Rebbi Simeon who declares it pure so it cannot become impure, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? He explains “the Sabbatical year” following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here you say so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the Sabbatical year and the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Also we have stated for Rebbi Simeon who declares it pure so it cannot become impure, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

Rebbi Abba bat Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is forbidden to move a tarkos. Rebbi Immi instructed: it is permitted. Rebbi Jeremiah saw them moving it at the great assembly and did not object to them. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three it is a chair, more than this a ladder. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who permits follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any vessel except a carriage because it presses.”