ra

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since it was stated, “one does not take it as a pledge nor give it as a deposit”, this means that if one transgressed and took it as a pledge, trangressed and gave as a deposit, one fines him for it.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Ben Bag Bag says (Deut. 14:26): ‘You shall spend the money for anything you desire.’ It was stated: A person may buy a cow because of its hide, a sheep because of its fleece, and wine because of its pitcher.” Rebbi Zeïra said, that is, if the seller was a private person. But if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah said this: “In a place where wine jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane.” Rebbi Mana said, from this [you conclude that] just as you say there, if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately, so if the buyer was a professional it is as if he bought this separately and that separately.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Ben Bag Bag says (Deut. 14:26): ‘You shall spend the money for anything you desire.’ It was stated: A person may buy a cow because of its hide, a sheep because of its fleece, and wine because of its pitcher.” Rebbi Zeïra said, that is, if the seller was a private person. But if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah said this: “In a place where wine jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane.” Rebbi Mana said, from this [you conclude that] just as you say there, if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately, so if the buyer was a professional it is as if he bought this separately and that separately.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An animal of Second Tithe in Jerusalem following Rebbi Meїr is free from the rules of firstlings; following Rebbi Jehudah it is under the rules of firstlings. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If it gave birth to a firstling, must its sacred parts be brought onto the altar? Did not its sacred parts fall under the rules of Second Tithe and you would hide it from being eaten? He said to him, if somebody bought meat as meat of desire, would not [the holiness of] Second Tithe have fallen on its sacred parts, would you not hide it from being eaten? He said to him, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Yose said, we were not saying so but the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively. What is the difference between them? If it gave birth to a firstling and he dedicated it as well-being sacrifice. For him who says, the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively, it is offered. For him who says, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it, and it is not offered.

Rebbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rebbi Zeïra: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Ḥinena asked before Rebbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave to the Cohen and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled does the bread not become unusable?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah said that one does not exchange coins for fruits far from the Place. He said that before Rebbi Abinna who praised him, before Rebbi Jeremiah who needled him: Did we not state, “coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside”? There is a difference because it was in one place. When Rebbi Ḥaggai left, he found it stated: coins and produce in Jerusalem, coins and produce in the countryside. He said, if Rebbi Jeremiah had heard this, he would have needled me justly. He wanted to change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not change your mind since Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis [disagree] about demay; therefore not for certain [produce]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, it follows that demay and certain are equal.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, for the profit of the Second; maybe the rest will be lost and then at least those held in his hand will be kept for Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Zeïra said, and one has to spell out and say, if those at the bottom are from the Second, those in my hand are taken in their stead. Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected from all around but if he collected in a straight line it is as if he had swept and taken out fists full.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, for the profit of the Second; maybe the rest will be lost and then at least those held in his hand will be kept for Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Zeïra said, and one has to spell out and say, if those at the bottom are from the Second, those in my hand are taken in their stead. Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected from all around but if he collected in a straight line it is as if he had swept and taken out fists full.

It was stated: Ben Azai says, two. Rebbi Zeïra said, in a dream I had Ulla bar Ismael ate fat meat. The next day he came and asked him, he said to him, why two? He said to him, since you tell him so, he will push himself to exchange it.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

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

Rebbi Zeïra asked: If he separated Second Tithe for it from another place, is it freed or was it already grabbed by the enclosure? Rebbi Jonah asked: If he made all of it Second Tithe for some place, is all of it taken or only one tenth of what is in it?

Rebbi Zeïra said: Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Jonathan, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ascended to Jerusalem. There happened to be produce for them; they wanted to redeem it in the countryside. An old woman told them, your forefathers did not do that but took it outside of the wall and redeemed it there. The old woman thought one considers the enclosures as if they were risen; those rabbis thought one does not consider the enclosures as if they were risen. The old woman held with Rebbi Eliezer; those rabbis held with Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Phineas made it impure and redeemed it; he took both into consideration.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the student. Rebbi Zeïra said, only for produce which is ṭevel as demai. But [tithe of] demai itself is already grabbed by the enclosure.

Rebbi Zeïra said, this means pure Second Tithe which he brought inside on condition that the enclosure not “grab” it, the enclosure does not “grab” it. Rebbi Jonah asked, it is pure and you say so? But it must be: If he transgressed and redeemed it, it is redeemed.

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

Rebbi Zeïra said, the Torah said, spend it in the Holy Place and assemble it in the countryside. Just as in the holy place the flask is profane, in the contryside can the flask be grasped by tithe?

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce.

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

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

Rebbi Zeïra asked, why do we not enumerate all for what they are: As we have stated: “A dedicated tree one colors with vermilion, houses of idol worship one blackens with charcoal, a leprous house one indicates by burned ashes, the place of a slain person by blood, the place where the neck of a calf was broken by a stone enclosure.” Is one not afraid that it will be said it is a tree which sheds its fruits? Did we not state: “If a tree sheds its fruits, one colors it red with vermilion, loads it with stones, and frightens it into producing.” They said, there that it should not loosen its fruits, here that it should start to produce. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not teach “a line”, like the vermilion line as remembrance of the altar, as we have stated there: “A vermilion line is like a belt in the middle to distinguish between upper and lower blood.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one writes on it with vermilion: “dedicated.”

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even a vineyard reaching to the wall was redeemed.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from explaining ה by ח.

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

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield to add for you, etc.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property, so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; just as you say that Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.

Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his ṭevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like (Is. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zuṭra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra, but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah or leavened but would spoil.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra, but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah or leavened but would spoil.

Is one guilty because of new grain when it is roasted? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” Anything for whose bread you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for parched grain because of new grain; but anything for whose bread you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for parched grain because of new grain.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there: “One may not bring cereal offerings, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow Rebbi Joḥanan!

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

“Second Tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rebbi Hillel ben Vales argued in the name of Rebbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave”.

Rebbi Zeïra said: It is written (Deut 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all your seed-yield.” Anything which will grow when sown; this excludes seeds less than one-third ripe which when sown will not grow.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: Is it different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

What is certainly parboiled? Rebbi Zeïra said, everything the fire burns under. Rebbi Yose said, even if the fire burns under it, since he will use it as dough in the future it is obligated for ḥallah. Roasted flour which he used as flour is obligated for ḥallah. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he baked it.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate. Could he say to him, three and separate? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, qabim in their places are measured by quarters. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of ḥallah.

HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rebbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra] in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

HALAKHAH: “One may eat a snack from the dough”, etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rebbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, [Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra] in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle? Rebbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?

Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.

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

They said, Rebbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question. What is the difference between him who takes from itself for itself and him who takes from it for another place? When he takes from itself for itself, since this ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear. When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear. Rebbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear.

But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified.

It was stated: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

“ If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews?

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen.” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?) But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch!

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? If he planted for fencing, logs, or wood, kinds appropriate for that use. If he planted an inappropriate kind it is obligated.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it correctly, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, if he changed the way it is usually planted: For wood tightly together, for logs cutting off branches, for a fence the location of the fence proves it.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: One understands if the lower part is for a fence but the upper part for food, but the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? It grows out of something forbidden and you say so? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard which he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: One understands if the lower part is for a fence but the upper part for food, but the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? It grows out of something forbidden and you say so? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard which he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or did you discuss ‘orlah and this came up relating to First Fruits when he said, roots do not count? Rebbi Zeïra said, what we say, roots do not count, if the roots spread from outside the Land into the Land. But when they spread from the Land to outside the Land they do count.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or did you discuss ‘orlah and this came up relating to First Fruits when he said, roots do not count? Rebbi Zeïra said, what we say, roots do not count, if the roots spread from outside the Land into the Land. But when they spread from the Land to outside the Land they do count.

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

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A citrus medica tree which formed flower buds subject to ‘orlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; if [the tree] was attached to another tree even if [the fruit] grows much it is forbidden because growth of something forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden. Therefore, an attached young twig must be permitted because, if you say it is not permitted, even if it grows much it will be forbidden! Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis: A citrusmedica tree which formed flower buds subject to ‘orlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; what was attached to another tree even if it grows much is forbidden; one whips for the size of an olive.

Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeïra: You say two things which contradict each other. Here you say, because growth of anything forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden; there you say one whips for the size of an olive. Should he not be whipped only in the proportion it contains? Rebbi Jonah said, in the first case it lives because of itself, in the second because of the attachment. Then if a citrus medica, which blossomed in an ‘orlah year and grew in an exempt year, is attached reciprocally to a tree of the same kind they will cleanse one another.

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.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

“Anqoqlot and the grape skins.” Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis in the name of Rav: Grapes which went bad before they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even after they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is a stenographic expression: “Grapes becoming bad at a third.”

If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Assi said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem it as from the time it is sown? Rebbi Hanania 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 Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

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.

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

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden; this remainder will be permitted if they have been opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they have been opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.

Rebbi Zeriqan asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is the Mishnah Rebbi’s since Rebbi said, all roots live off one another? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. Here, the Torah said (Deut. 26:2): “the beginning of the First Fruits of your land,” that all growth be from your land.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.