rabban

“Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less;” if he wants to add, he may add. “Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more;” does this mean that if he wants to give less frequently he may not do so?

MISHNAH: For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor. If the wind dispersed any sheaves, one estimates what amount of gleanings that would have yielded, and he gives that to the poor. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he gives to the poor the average fall.

It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Avin said, from this you do not infer anything. (Deut. 16:1) “Watch the spring month.” Watch it that it should come in its renewal.

Rebbi Jehudah said, they argued before Rabban Gamliel: Because betrothed she is his wife and married she is his wife; just as the sale by the latter is void, the sale by the former also should be void. He said to them, we are ashamed of the new ones, now you want to roll old ones over us! The new ones, after nissuïn, the old ones before nissuïn, when she was married in the second ceremony.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

MISHNAH: A sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not a “forgotten sheaf.” Two sheaves that together are two seah, Rabban Gamliel says, they are for the proprietor, but the Sages say, they are for the poor. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Does large size of the sheaves increase or decrease the power of the proprietor? They said to him, it increases it. He said to them: Since a sheaf containing two seah that was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf,” it is only logical that two sheaves that together are two seah should not be “forgotten sheaf” either. They said to him, if they said that about one sheaf that is like a stack, do you want to say the same about two sheaves that are like bundles? Standing produce of two seah which was forgotten is not “forgotten sheaf.” If it does not have two seah but it might bring two seah, even if it were oats it is considered like barley grains.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as standing produce saves the sheaf, so the sheaf saves the standing produce. This is logical: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, it is only logical that the sheaf should save, since on it the power of the poor is reduced. Rebbi answered him: If standing produce, on which the power of the poor is enhanced, saves if any of it was forgotten, is it logical that the sheaf, on which the power of the poor is reduced, if any of it was forgotten should save? From the words of both of them we infer that sheaf is saved by sheaf, but standing produce is not saved by standing produce.

Hence, if all is cut it is for the proprietor. Our Mishnah follows Rabban Gamliel.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

MISHNAH: One lets the poor and the stranger eat demay. Rabban Gamliel let his laborers eat demay. The House of Shammai say, the administrators of charity give the tithed food to those who do not tithe, and the untithed food to those who tithe, so that it turns out that everybody eats produce that is in order. But the Sages say, one collects without asking and one distributes without asking, and he who wants to put in order should put in order.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.”

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.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: It this not from the fruits that are exempt at Caesarea? He said to him, did not Rebbi permit fruits at Caesarea? But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel preceded Rebbi!

Rebbi Taypha the Red in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect. How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave. You believe a Samaritan that he gave and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated: “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated: “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.”

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

“If he received a field to harvest for early ears, grapes to harvest for baskets of grapes, olives to harvest for baskets of olives, he delivers as is.” That means, if (he is paid) in the same kind; but from another field, or from that field but not from the same kind, he must tithe before he delivers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the same field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he separates heave and delivers. From another field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he tithes and delivers.” The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the Sages, and they disagree. We also may come and state that the Mishnah deals with some place where barley usually does not yield twice as much as wheat; what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated refers to a place where barley usually yields twice as much as wheat.

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

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

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

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

It was stated: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree, they are from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.” Rebbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed? Rebbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects”?

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation.

MISHNAH: A worker who does not believe his employer takes one dried fig and says: This one and the next nine shall be tithe for ninety that I shall eat. This one is made heave of the tithe for them. The Second Tithe is at the end and it is redeemed by a coin. He saves one fig. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he should not save because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer. But Rebbi Yose said, he should not save because that is a stipulation of the Court.

What is the reason of the rabbis? Because he intended to plough, even if it is not covering. It was stated: Abba Shaul said, “one does not oblige him to plough finely, only like the furrows of the rainy season. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it used to be called ‘horse tail,’ so that the end of dust of any one furrow touch that of the next one.” What is the reason of Abba Shaul? Since he started, it is enough up to a quarter. Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Yose? He is with the rabbis, for the rabbis said, because he intended to plough, even if it is not covering. Abba Shaul says, because he started intentionally to plough, it is enough up to a quarter. Rebbi Yose said, he must finish that entire quarter.

So is the Mishnah: “One does not surround,” hence one may sow close up. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “One may surround by mustard or saffron only bulbous vegetables, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, any field one may surround by mustard or saffron except a grain field. Rebbi Simeon said, any field one may surround by mustard or saffron. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, one may surround small vegetable beds by mustard or saffron.”

“Raw silk and silk noil”. Raw silk is μέταξα. Kalak silk is imperial ‘gbyn. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I went around among all sea-faring men and they told me that it was called kalka.

If it is so, why was it said: One ploughs until the New Year? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibition of the first two terms. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state: No court may annul the words of another court unless it is greater in wisdom and numbers? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to plough, they may plough. Then it should have been eliminated from the Mishnah! Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to re-establish it, they may do so.

MISHNAH: Three trees belonging to three different owners are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah for them. How much space must be between them? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, so that the ox and its harness can pass.

MISHNAH: Saplings and gourds go together in a bet seah. Rabban Gamliel says, if there are ten gourds in a bet seah, one ploughs the entire bet seah until New Year’s Day. How long are they called saplings? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, until they become profane. Rebbi Joshua said, seven years. Rebbi Aqiba said, tree saplings when they are called so. A tree which was cut down and grows anew, if it was cut lower than one hand-breadth it is like a sapling, higher than a hand-breadth it is a tree, the words of Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “Saplings and gourds, etc.” That is only if there are more saplings than gourds. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd? Rebbi Mana objected, did we not state: “Three green melons, three gourds, and four saplings go together and one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them.” It fits only for the last sentence: Rabban Gamliel says, if there are ten gourds in a bet seah, one ploughs the entire bet seah until New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd?

MISHNAH: He who wants his field to be fertilized makes a corral enclosing two bet seah. He may remove the walls in three directions and leave the middle one; then he may fertilize four bet seah; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says eight bet seah. If his entire field was only four bet seah, he leaves out part of it because of the bad impression. He may take [manure] out from the corral and put it on his field the way professionals do it.

“ One does not fertilize on the Sabbath, on holidays, or on the intermediate days of holidays, even if only for goodwill. One is not permitted to put a watchman there, nor to have the flock relieve themselves, and if they came by themselves one may not help them. But if they were working with him over the Sabbaths and holidays, he is permitted to put a watchman there, to have the flock relieve themselves, and if they came by themselves he may help them.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, on the Sabbath [workers] fertilize for goodwill, on the holidays for meals, and on the intermediate days of holidays even for wages.”

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

“ 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.”

“ 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.”

“ 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.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody cuts down an olive tree,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody cuts reeds, Rebbi Jehudah says at a place where one is used to cut, he should tear out; at a place where one is used to tear out, he should cut. In any case, he should cut higher than a hand-breadth. If somebody cuts down for logs, he should not plane and cut in steps, cut in steps to create joints, but he should try to cut them straight.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, at a place where one usually planes, he should cut in steps, in steps he should plane and cut down at the ground, but he should not cut with an axe.”

MISHNAH: When may one not cut down a tree in the Sabbatical year? The House of Shammai say, every tree when it starts. But the House of Hillel say, carob trees when they form clusters, vines when they produce fluid, olive trees when they have flower buds, all other trees when they start. Any tree may be cut down once it[s fruit] has reached the stage of tithes. How much should be on an olive tree so one should not cut it down? A quarter [qab]. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all according to the olive tree.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a tree that buds before the fifteenth of Ševaṭ is tithed for the past [year]; after the fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the coming [year].” It was stated: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, when has this been said? For a tree producing two threshing floors a year. But trees making only one threshing floor per year, such as olive trees, date palms and carob trees, even if they budded before this day, belong to the future.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, people use to follow Rebbi Neḥemiah for carobs. Rebbi Simeon objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state that “the Sabbatical of white figs is the second year since they produce after three years”? According to you, those ripened in the Sabbatical year should be Sabbatical! He accepted that. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I wonder how Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish could bring this objection before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it. Could he not object: I am speaking about carobs and you about white figs, I am speaking about custom and you about practice, I am speaking about Rebbi Neḥemiah and you about the rabbis! It follows that the rules are equal for carobs and white figs, custom and practice, Rebbi Neḥemiah and the rabbis.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Does this mean, the first third for the past, the second third for the future? He said to him, the first third is slow in coming; afterwards it grows rapidly. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra learned that from a competent sharecropper. Samuel said, sixty days for six leaves, six days for sixty leaves. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from the appearance of leaves to the bud fifty days, from the bud to the wind-fall fifty days, from wind-fall to figs fifty days. Rebbi says, all of them by forty days.” If somebody harvested figs and does not know when their buds were formed, Rebbi Jonah said he counts a hundred days backwards; if the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ falls in this period he knows when they budded.

About leaves preserved with sprouts, some Tannaïm state: both of them are subject to removal. Some Tannaïm state: neither of them is subject to removal. Leaves are subject to removal, sprouts are not subject to removal. He who says [both] are not subject to removal is Rebbi Joshua; he who says [leaves] are subject to removal but sprouts are not subject to removal is Rabban Gamliel.

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.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a sign for mountains are ash trees, for valleys dates, for brooks reeds, for the lowland sycamores. Even if it is no proof, there is a sign (1K. 10:27, 2Chr. 1:19, 9:27)): ‘Cedars he [Solomon] gave as many as sycamores in the lowland.’ ” Some people want to say it was said as a legal term, others say it refers to the calf whose neck is to be broken.

MISHNAH: He who preserves three kinds in one barrel, Rebbi Eliezer says one eats because of the first kind, but Rebbi Joshua says, even because of the last. Rabban Gamliel says, anything whose kind has disappeared from the fields must be removed from the house. Rebbi Simeon says, all vegetables are one kind for removal; one eats purslain until there are no more sindiot in the Bet Neṭofa valley.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? The first kind gives taste to the last. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? The last kind gives taste to the first. It is difficult for Rebbi Joshua, does not the first kind gives taste to the last? “Rabban Gamliel says, anything whose kind has disappeared from the fields must be removed from the house.” It was stated: Practice follows his words.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, everything that depends on fertility extends until the second rainfall, if it is not dependent on fertility, until the expected time of the second rainfall. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if rains came for seven uninterrupted days, they include the second rainfall. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: Why is it called רביעה? Because it fertilizes the land.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, everything that depends on fertility extends until the second rainfall, if it is not dependent on fertility, until the expected time of the second rainfall. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if rains came for seven uninterrupted days, they include the second rainfall. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: Why is it called רביעה? Because it fertilizes the land.

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

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when was this said? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf and dumb, he writes and others confirm his signature. If he hears but cannot speak, he is like a normal person.”

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

“All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other.” It was stated: “One gives as heave fresh figs for dried figs; dried figs go by count. Dried figs for fresh figs by volume, but fresh figs for dry figs do not go by volume, nor dry figs for fresh figs by count. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, baskets of fresh and dried figs are all one kind and one gives heave and tithes from one for the other. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, my father used to take ten dried figs from the drying place for ninety fresh figs in the container.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, you consider the shriveled ones as if they had swelled and you take the baskets as they are. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say that swollen shrinks but shrunk does not swell; one would have to take large baskets for fresh figs.. Rebbi Aḥa said to them, that is what your teacher Rebbi Ilai thought about it.

“ If he said, the heave of this heap shall be in its Northern part, the Northern half is dema‘, the words of Rebbi;” he takes one half. “But the Sages say, like a X;” one quarter. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he takes its heave from the Northernmost part;” one eighth.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, who is the Tanna of pecking? “Rabban Gamliel says, also the snake because it spits out.” Rebbi Jonah said, who would turn commandments into peckings for us?

It was stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden [to eat from them] for I say, they might have eaten from the place of a pecking hole.” Rebbi Abba said, that means that a snake spits out repeatedly. Rebbi Jonah said, who considers for us commandments for peckings? But for torn [animals], Rebbi Abba said in the name of the rabbis from there, “if it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order because intestines are presumed to be in order.” Should one not question whether they were pierced? Intestines are presumed to be in order. But here, you say so? It is worse if there is danger to life; for peckings they went all the way with Rabban Gamliel.

MISHNAH: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose. Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed [in the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action]. About both of these cases, Rebbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to [intentionally] make it impure. If somebody was on the road with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I shall defile all of them, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rebbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her, otherwise we shall defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over.

There, we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon, Rebbi Birai, Rebbi Levi bar Plautus, an elder in the name of Rebbi: 61 are forbidden, 62 are permitted. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada testified before us: 60. He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I shall declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I [said] what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty. He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi; he asked: Are there 50?

“Even though it was kept to grow it is subject to tithes small or large.” Does this imply that if it was not kept to grow it is not subject to tithes small or large? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To exclude the words of Rabban Gamliel as we have stated there: “Rabban Gamliel says, flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes.” Rebbi Yasa said, did Rabban Gamliel obligate them because of food? If it were so, what about their greenery? But Rabban Gamliel says, they are important as food, but the rabbis say, they are not important as food. In addition, from what we are stating: “Rebbi Joshua said, I never wanted to tell anybody go, collect flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans and cook them, to free them from tithes.”

“Even though it was kept to grow it is subject to tithes small or large.” Does this imply that if it was not kept to grow it is not subject to tithes small or large? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To exclude the words of Rabban Gamliel as we have stated there: “Rabban Gamliel says, flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes.” Rebbi Yasa said, did Rabban Gamliel obligate them because of food? If it were so, what about their greenery? But Rabban Gamliel says, they are important as food, but the rabbis say, they are not important as food. In addition, from what we are stating: “Rebbi Joshua said, I never wanted to tell anybody go, collect flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans and cook them, to free them from tithes.”

“Even though it was kept to grow it is subject to tithes small or large.” Does this imply that if it was not kept to grow it is not subject to tithes small or large? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To exclude the words of Rabban Gamliel as we have stated there: “Rabban Gamliel says, flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes.” Rebbi Yasa said, did Rabban Gamliel obligate them because of food? If it were so, what about their greenery? But Rabban Gamliel says, they are important as food, but the rabbis say, they are not important as food. In addition, from what we are stating: “Rebbi Joshua said, I never wanted to tell anybody go, collect flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans and cook them, to free them from tithes.”

“Even though it was kept to grow it is subject to tithes small or large.” Does this imply that if it was not kept to grow it is not subject to tithes small or large? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To exclude the words of Rabban Gamliel as we have stated there: “Rabban Gamliel says, flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes.” Rebbi Yasa said, did Rabban Gamliel obligate them because of food? If it were so, what about their greenery? But Rabban Gamliel says, they are important as food, but the rabbis say, they are not important as food. In addition, from what we are stating: “Rebbi Joshua said, I never wanted to tell anybody go, collect flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans and cook them, to free them from tithes.”

Samuel said, if a pumpkin was punctured, all that grows in that depression is forbidden. The same holds for bunches of dates. “ Rebbi Yose said, Jonathan ben Ḥarasha from Genezareth asked Rabban Gamliel and the Sages at Jabneh: What is the status of punctured soft dates on their tree? They said to him, that entire date palm is forbidden.” Rebbi Yose said, that statement is needed if all [dates] are punctured; you should not say, since a snake does not usually do this, a cloud of birds rested on them and pecked at them. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon the Pious: Punctured soft dates on their tree are forbidden, but people behave as if they were permitted and they are not hurt.

“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats as usual and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket,’ he should not eat before tithing. When has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he can eat and does not have to tithe, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he has to put it in order as certainly untithed since Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked. Rebbi said, I prefer my words to those of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. It is preferable that they should tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar.” Rebbi Zeїra said, from both their opinions [it follows that] even a Fellow who sends to another Fellow must tithe. They ventured to say, he who said that Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked, when somebody is a Fellow he has to tithe. And he who said, it is better to tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar, if he is a Fellow he has to tithe. Rebbi Jonah asked: Here you declare him to be a Fellow, there you declare him to be a vulgar. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases, he is a vulgar. But because of the rare one who puts in order he is called a Fellow.

“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats as usual and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket,’ he should not eat before tithing. When has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he can eat and does not have to tithe, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he has to put it in order as certainly untithed since Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked. Rebbi said, I prefer my words to those of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. It is preferable that they should tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar.” Rebbi Zeїra said, from both their opinions [it follows that] even a Fellow who sends to another Fellow must tithe. They ventured to say, he who said that Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked, when somebody is a Fellow he has to tithe. And he who said, it is better to tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar, if he is a Fellow he has to tithe. Rebbi Jonah asked: Here you declare him to be a Fellow, there you declare him to be a vulgar. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases, he is a vulgar. But because of the rare one who puts in order he is called a Fellow.

It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Bene Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if we stay overnight, we are obligated to tithe; otherwise, we are not obligated to tithe.” Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Joshua insists on cleanliness. Rebbi Mana said to him, are all others insane? But Rebbi Joshua, who frequently was attended to, says that staying overnight induces ṭevel. For all others, who are not frequently attended to, staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. But did we not state: “Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat until they come to the place where they will stay for the night.” Where is their overnight stay? In their house! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Like those of Kefar Ḥanina who go out, trade in four or five villages, return, and sleep in their houses.

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, the budding fruits of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes. Rebbi Eliezer says, the caper tree is subject to tithes for its budding fruits and capers. Rebbi Aqiba says, only the berries are subject because they are fruit.

MISHNAH: A person should not sell his produce after it reached the period of tithing to anybody not trustworthy in matters of tithe, or in the Sabbatical year to anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical. If some were ripened early he takes the early ripe fruit and sells the remainder. A person should not sell his chaff or his oil cakes or his grape husks to somebody not trustworthy in matters of tithe if the latter wants to extract fluids from it. If he extracted, he is obligated for tithes but free from heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff. If somebody bought a vegetable field in Syria before it reached the time of tithes he is obligated, after it reached the time of tithes he is free and he can harvest continuously. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may even hire workers and harvest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, where has this been said? When he bought the field. But if he did not buy the field he is free even after it reached the time of tithes. Rebbi said, all according to computation.

Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel goes with the argument of his ancestor Rabban Gamliel. As we stated there: “Jews who were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria, Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel frees.”

Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel goes with the argument of his ancestor Rabban Gamliel. As we stated there: “Jews who were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria, Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel frees.”

Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel goes with the argument of his ancestor Rabban Gamliel. As we stated there: “Jews who were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria, Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel frees.”

“ What is Baalbek garlic? Any with only one hole surrounding the stem. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any with only one skin. What is Rikhpa onion? Any whose prick is dissolved in it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that has no poison.”

“ What is Baalbek garlic? Any with only one hole surrounding the stem. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any with only one skin. What is Rikhpa onion? Any whose prick is dissolved in it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that has no poison.”

These are Cilician grits, these are square. It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.

These are Cilician grits, these are square. It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.

“These are Egyptian lentils: All whose spheres are sharp-edged. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that have no pebbles. What are colocasia? All whose pricks are short and their extensions are many.” What compares to it? Rebbi Yose said, like these qonyata.

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.

MISHNAH: Of profane and Second Tithe coins that were strewn around, what one collected goes to Second Tithe until complete, the remainder is profane. If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is in proportion. That is the principle: What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together by proportion. If a tetradrachma of Second Tithe was mixed up with a profane one, one brings coins in the value of a tetradrachma and says: The tetradrachma of Second Tithe, wherever it may be, is exchanged for these coins. Then he chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them since they said, one exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency, not that it should stay so but that he should exchange them for silver. The House of Shammai say, a person should not turn his tetradrachmas into gold denars but the House of Hillel permit it. Rebbi Aqiba said, for Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua I turned their silver coins into gold denars.