sages

How long may he recite? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel, until the food in his bowels is digested. But the sages say, all the time that he is thirsty because of that meal. Rebbi Yoḥanan says, until he gets hungry again.

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan went to make peace in the Southern settlements. They came to a place where they found the reader saying: “The great God, the strong and awe-inspiring, the noble and overpowering;” they stopped him and told him: you are not permitted to add to the formula the Sages coined for benedictions. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: (Job 37:23) “The All-powerful, we did not find for Him the fullness of His might,” we did not find out the might and strength of the Holy One, praise to Him! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: (Job 37:20) “Can it be told to Him if I should speak, if a man tells, he certainly will be swallowed up.” If a man comes to tell the strengths of the Holy One, praise to Him, he sets himself up to be swallowed away from the world. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said (Ps. 106:2) “Who can tell the strengths of the Eternal?” For example, I and my colleagues. Rebbi Abun said: “Who can ever tell the strengths of the Eternal?” Jacob of Kefar Naburaia explained in Tyre: (Ps. 65:2) “Silence is praise for You, God in Zion!” The medicine for everything is silence; like a priceless jewel: everyone who adorns himself with it, diminishes it.

But the sages say (Ps. 116:13): “I lift the cup of salvation, I call on the Name of the Eternal, trouble and sorrow I will find, but on the Name of the Eternal I shall call.” Whatever may happen to me, I shall call on the Name of the Eternal. Rebbi Yudan bar Pelaya said: This is what Job said (Job 1:21): “The Eternal gave, and the Eternal took, may the Name of the Eternal be praised!” When He gave, He gave in mercy; when He took, He took in mercy. In addition, when He gave, He did not consult anybody, but when He took, He consulted His Court. Rebbi Eleazar said, everwhere it says “and the Eternal” it means Him and His Court. The paradigm of this is (1K. 22:23): “And the Eternal spoke woe over you.”

Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The students of the Sages increase peace in the world. What is the reason? (Is. 54:13) “All your sons are students of the Eternal, and ample peace is for your sons.”

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

Rebbi Tarphon’s mother went to promenade in her backyard on the Sabbath. Rebbi Tarphon went and put his two hands under her feet and she walked on them until she got to her couch. Once he fell ill and the sages came to visit him. She told them: Pray for my son Tarphon because he honors me too much. They asked her, what did he do for you? She told them what had happened. They said to her, even if he did this a million times, he did not yet reach even half of the honor that the Torah requires.

MISHNAH: The following separate regarding peah: The river, the water canal, a private road, a public road, a private path or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field and [another kind of] seed. He who cuts for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places.” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds. And here he says so? It is obvious for him that it separates. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching. If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching. If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot.

Two kinds, half moist and half dry, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. But did we not state: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill and mustard at three different places …” It is so: Either dill at three places or mustard at three places. Samuel says, because the first one does not wait for the last one. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they usually are being sown bed by bed. According to Samuel, he has to give from each stalk; according to Rebbi Joḥanan he has to give from each bed.

MISHNAH: Mother onions are subject to peah, Rebbi Yose frees. Rectangles of onions among vegetables, Rebbi Yose says peah from each single one, but the Sages say from one for everything.

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired with guaranteed property, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Madon was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said it is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it for Rebbi Aqiba (after smoothing) [in a disagreement], or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

MISHNAH: He who collected peah and said: “This is for X, the poor man,” Rebbi Eliezer says, he made him acquire it; but the Sages say, he should give it to the first poor person he meets. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Non-Jew are obligated for tithes, except if the Non-Jew declared it to be abandoned property.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, even if he declared it abandoned property it is obligated. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, the Sages decreed special leniency for gleanings.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings?

MISHNAH: One does not use a waterwheel with buckets, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment.

MISHNAH: One does not use a waterwheel with buckets, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages do permit it, because it is impossible. A householder wandering from one place to another who was in need of taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor should repay them once he comes home, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, he was poor at that moment.

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.

It was stated: “The standing produce of his neighbor saves his own, the standing produce of a Gentile saves that of a Jew, the standing wheat saves barley, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, only his own produce saves and only its own kind.”

MISHNAH: Grain cut for animal feed or to bind sheaves, and similarly garlic used to bind as well as bundles of garlic and onions are not subject to “forgotten sheaves.” Anything hidden in the ground, such as luf, garlic, and onions, Rebbi Jehudah says, they are not subject to “forgotten sheaves”, but the Sages say, they are subject to “forgotten sheaves.”

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

MISHNAH: What are dropped berries? Anything that drops during vintage. If he was gathering grapes, cut off the bunch, it got mixed up in the leaves, fell to the ground and scattered, that belongs to the proprietor. He who puts a basket under the vine while he is gathering grapes robs the poor, and about him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.” What is a gleaning of grapes? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has either shoulder or dropping it belongs to the proprietor, in case of doubt it belongs to the poor. A gleaning on a cut branch, if it can be cut off together with a bunch it belongs to the proprietor, otherwise to the poor. An isolated berry, Rebbi Jehudah says, it is considered a bunch, but the sages say, a gleaning.

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 the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth year after planting 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.

HALAKHAH: There we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs from Temple trees. The Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself. Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple it is exempt from orlah, from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.”

A family from Nevallat in Jerusalem traced its descent from Oman the Yebusite. Once the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of gold to avoid causing them to leave Jerusalem, since they interpreted “in your gates, in your gates,” to include Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages enumerated them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

MISHNAH: Demay is not subject to a fifth or to elimination, it may be eaten by a strict mourner, it may enter Jerusalem and leave it, and one may destroy a small part of it on the road; he may give it to the am haäreẓ if he eats correspondingly, he may redeem silver for silver, copper for copper, silver for copper, and copper for produce if he again redeems the produce, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, produce should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

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

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

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

MISHNAH: The sages did not obligate bakers to separate more than the heave of the tithe and ḥallah. Grocers are not permitted to sell demay. All who sell wholesale in large quantities may sell demay. The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example grain buyers and sellers.

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.

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily. Samuel bar Abba asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them? For tithes, following him who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily. Samuel bar Abba asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them? For tithes, following him who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily. Samuel bar Abba asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them? For tithes, following him who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay. But the Sages say, he has to give a name but does not have to separate. He who gave a name to his heave of the tithe of demay, or to the certain tithe of the poor, should not separate them on the Sabbath. But if a Cohen or a poor person were used to eat from his food at his table, they may come and eat it on condition that he inform them.

It was stated: He is trustworthy if they saw him separate the Second Tithe. It was stated: For the Second, he is trustworthy for the First, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he trustworthy for the First, he is trustworthy for the Second. He who is trustworthy for the Second is not trustworthy for the First. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Is it because he is not suspected of advancing the tithe, or because if he separated the Second it is a standing presumption that he separated the First? But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay.” Hence, for the Second it is needed. Since he has to separate the Second, on which the owner earns no goodwill he certainly will separate the First, on which he earns goodwill!

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.”

“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.

There you say, he separates heave and delivers to him. Here you say, he tithes and delivers to him. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages fined the one who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine the one who leases from a Jew. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile but not to him who leases from a Jew.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: If an Israel received (as sharecropper) from a Cohen or a Levite, the tithes are for the owners. Rebbi Ismael says, if a villager received a field from a Jerusalemite, the Second Tithe is the Jerusalemite’s. But the Sages say, the villager can make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem.

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

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”?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

Rebbi Eleazar said, this is from Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says that you accept only the very first version. There, we have stated: “This one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering and for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr.” Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that Rebbi Meïr and the Sages disagree only after the time for speech, but not within the time for speech. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, it means that even within the time of speech he cannot retract.

This is the Mishnah: “Their tithes are tithes for each basket in the other one, he gave it a name,” because he declared both names at the same time. One after the other you accept only the very first version. Rebbi Abuna said, the Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about him who says “this heave substitutes for Second” (that he is guilty). “This animal instead of well-being offerings,” he is obligated for two since he declared two names at the same time; hence, one after the other you accept only the very first version. Not so, said Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav Huna: “This one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering,” he may retract that within the time for speech. That is, if he wants to retract, there if he wants to add. If one said, “this is heave,” even within the time of speech he cannot retract. A person can be asked about his dedication but nobody can be asked about his heave.

“ If someone has a basket and wants to tithe it, he takes two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, corresponding to ten tithe and nine Second Tithe.” Why does he not say 19? Rebbi Zeïra said, the words of the Sages and their riddles. He who wants to bring a hundred figs in order into his house takes for ever single fig two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, 23 figs in all, four called ninth of a ninth.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Menasheh said: The opinion of the Sages is that one takes a small piece from the pericarp of a green melon and plants it and it grows to a water melon. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and plants it and it grows to a sweet melon. Rebbi Jehudah says, it in itself is kilaim. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and a small piece from the pericarp of an apple and puts them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim. Therefore it is called “apple melon” in the Greek language.

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

MISHNAH: Every seah that contains a quarter of seeds from another kind should be diminished; Rebbi Yose says, he must pick it out, whether it be from one kind or from two kinds. Rebbi Simeon said, they said it only for one kind, but the Sages say, everything that is kilaim with the seah counts together for a quarter. When is this said? Grain with grain, legumes with legumes, grain with legumes, legumes with grain. In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah. Rebbi Simeon said, that which they said to restrict, they also said for leniency. Flax seeds in grain add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah.

Rebbi Eleazar asked: What are the rules for a small field? Let us hear from the following: “ Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon: Abba Yose ben Joḥanan from Yanoaḥ said for a large field 50 cubits, for a small field along most of it.” Since those who specified a measure for a large field did not do so for a small one, the Sages who did not specify a measure for a large field certainly would not specify a measure for a small field.

Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, it is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own. Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav comes out like Rebbi Simeon; just as Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own; so Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own. But it cannot be explained following the Sages.

MISHNAH: He who wants to turn his field into patches for all different kinds makes 24 patches per bet seah, each patch one bet rova‘, and sows in each one any kind that he desires. If there were one or two patches, he may sow them with mustard; three he should not sow because that would look like a mustard field, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nine patches are permitted, ten are forbidden. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, even if its field is a bet kor, he should not make in it more than one patch.

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

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

MISHNAH: If one’s field was sown with onions and he desired to plant there rows of pumpkin, Rebbi Ismael says, he uproots two rows, plants one row, and leaves two rows of onion standing, uproots two rows, plants one row. Rebbi Aqiba says, he uproots two rows, plants two rows, and leaves two rows of onion standing, uproots two rows, plants two rows. But the Sages say, if between one row and the next is less than twelve [cubits], he should not keep the seeds in between.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants two rows, he should not sow there unless there are eight cubits between them. If there were three rows, he should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next. Rebbi Eliezer said in the name of Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai: He should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next, even if the middle row dried up. But if he planted new [vines], it would be permitted with eight cubits. If somebody plants his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits, he may bring seeds there. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that somebody in Ṣalmon planted his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits. He turned the growth of two rows towards one another and sowed the ploughed area. The next year, he turned the growth to the side that had been sown and sowed what was fallow. This came before the Sages and they permitted it. Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Meïr say that this is permitted even for someone who plants his vineyard spaced eight cubits.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: The seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav: The practice is that one is permitted to sow. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. Does it mean that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow, or that the seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow? Since Rebbi Abba said: Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi measured the layout of my vineyard eight by eight; that means that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow. Rav Huna sowed leeks in his vineyard. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? They were mixed up and a single vine needs no place to tend it, following the words of Rebbi Ismael; as Rebbi Ismael said, the words of the Sages are that a single vine needs no place to tend it. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion.

MISHNAH: A vineyard that is planted less that four cubits apart, Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, if graves were spaced apart and one moved them together, they would form a graveyard. When they were close together and one spaces them apart, that does not make a graveyard. But here, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?

MISHNAH: A ditch that crosses a vineyard, ten hand-breadths deep and four wide. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, if it is open from one side of the vineyard to the opposite side it appears to be between two vineyards; one sows in it. Otherwise, it is like a vat. If a vat in the vineyard is ten deep and four wide, one sows in it, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; but the Sages forbid it. On a watchman’s mound in a vineyard that is ten hand-breadths high and four wide one may sow; but if hair was pressing down, it is forbidden. For a vine planted in a depression or in a cleft one allows the area needed for tending it and one sows the rest. Rebbi Yose said, if there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there. A house in a vineyard may be sown.

HALAKHAH: Unless it separates it and the area needed to tend it, since we have stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the case of a ditch that separates it and the area needed to tend it.” Hence, Rebbi Eliezer thinks that even if it does not separate it from the area needed to tend it. When do they disagree? If there are two rows on each side. But if there was only one row on either side, once it reaches three vines there no longer is a vineyard.

MISHNAH: If somebody keeps thistles growing in a vineyard, Rebbi Eliezer says he sanctified, but the Sages say only produce apt to be stored sanctifies. Iris, ivy, king’s lily, and all kinds of seed-plants are not kilaim in a vineyard. Hemp, Rebbi Tarphon says it is not kilaim but the Sages say it is kilaim. Artichokes are kilaim in a vineyard.

MISHNAH: If somebody keeps thistles growing in a vineyard, Rebbi Eliezer says he sanctified, but the Sages say only produce apt to be stored sanctifies. Iris, ivy, king’s lily, and all kinds of seed-plants are not kilaim in a vineyard. Hemp, Rebbi Tarphon says it is not kilaim but the Sages say it is kilaim. Artichokes are kilaim in a vineyard.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

MISHNAH: An interrupted trellis is more than eight cubits. No linear measurement stated by the Sages requires “more than” except an interrupted trellis. What is an interrupted trellis? A trellis [whose vines are] dried up in its middle, but there remained five vines on each side. If between them are eight cubits, one should not sow there. If there are more than eight cubits, one gives each side its working space and he may sow the rest. A trellis which starts from a wall in a corner and ends there, one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. Rebbi Yose said, if there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there. Sticks that stand out from the trellis, if he worries whether to remove them, then under them it is permitted, but if he made them so that the new growth can expand on them, it is forbidden. One looks at a blossom that comes out from the trellis as if a plumb-line were hanging down from it; under it it is forbidden. The same holds for a branch. Under a shoot of vine drawn from one tree to another, it is forbidden. If he binds them together with a rope or bast, under the binding it is permitted. But if he did that to accomodate future growth, it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the place of the trunks? Explain that as eight cubits and a little more. And why has this not been stated? Are you not concurring with Rebbi Joḥanan that in all linear measurements stated by the Sages, “more than” means [more by] a hand-breadth? But what he added is little, therefore it was not stated.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we say: “No linear measurements stated by the Sages require ‘more’ except an interrupted trellis?” Did we not state: “Ten Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, the garden and the corral which are seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder”? Samuel said, they taught two thirds of a cubit.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned an interrupted trellis. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned between the trellis and the fence. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is understandable, if he burned an interrupted trellis then the words of the Sages disagree with his. But if he burned between the trellis and the fence, are there words of the Sages which disagree with his? He had not heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the trellis itself: Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden and sanctifies. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned an interrupted trellis. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned between the trellis and the fence. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is understandable, if he burned an interrupted trellis then the words of the Sages disagree with his. But if he burned between the trellis and the fence, are there words of the Sages which disagree with his? He had not heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the trellis itself: Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden and sanctifies. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are the same.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

(Lev. 19:19) “[Kilaim cloth] shall not come upon you.” You are permitted to spread it out under you but the Sages said one should not do it lest one thread should be over his flesh.

If there were four and the ox may pass between them with its harness and two where the ox cannot pass with its harness, you consider it as if there were five. If there are five, we have the disagreement of Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis, as we have stated there: “A vineyard planted less that four cubits apart, Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent.”

Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said the same thing since Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth is subject to the rules of orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground.

It was stated: The Sages enumerated six cases for Egyptian bean. If one sowed it for seeds it is tithed for the past; if he sowed it as vegetable it is tithed for the future. If he sowed it for both seeds and vegetable, or if he sowed for seeds and then wanted it as vegetable, one may tithe from its seed on vegetable and from vegetable on seeds, on condition that it was one-third ripe before the New Year. But if it was only ripe one-third after the New Year, its seed is tithed for the past and its vegetable is tithed at the moment of its being plucked if it was collected before the New Year. But if some of it was collected after the New Year, both seed and vegetable are tithed for the future.

MISHNAH: Sterile onions and Egyptian beans from which water was withheld thirty days before the New Year are tithed for the past [year] and may be kept in the Sabbatical year; otherwise they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year and are tithed for the coming year. For those from a ba‘al field, if one withheld water for two periods, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say three.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he uses fewer boxes; hence, two are permitted. Rebbi Yose questioned, if he uses fewer boxes, then two should be forbidden. But where do we hold? If he exceeds the measure, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, one may not add boxes or dungheaps, but the Sages say, one may add boxes but not dungheaps.” If one adds boxes, are they not of full measure? Similarly, one brings out to the dungheap even full measures.

MISHNAH: A person may fill his entire field with dungheaps, three each per bet seah; more is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Simeon. But the Sages say, only if he raises or lowers it by three [hand-breadths]. A person may store his entire manure together; Rebbi Meïr says only if he raises or lowers it by three [hand-breadths]. If he had little, he may continuously add to it; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says only if he raises or lowers it by three [hand-breadths] or puts it on a rock.

“But the Sages forbid.” When he brings more than the measure. But if the full measure is permitted in three places, so much more in one place.

MISHNAH: If somebody stores arum in the Sabbatical year, Rebbi Meїr says it should not be less than two seah and [in a hole] three hand-breadths deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top. But the Sages say, it should not be less than four qab, one hand-breadth deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top, and should be stored where people step on it. Arum after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, he should settle with the poor. Rebbi Joshua says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, the poor have nothing to settle with him. Arum of the year before the Sabbatical entering the Sabbatical, as well as summer onions and madder growing on choice land, the House of Shammai say, one takes them out with wooden shovels but the House of Hillel say with iron spades. They agree that one takes out madder growing on slopes with iron spades. When may a person buy arum after the end of the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jehudah says, immediately. But the Sages say, after the new [crop] is dominant.

MISHNAH: If somebody stores arum in the Sabbatical year, Rebbi Meїr says it should not be less than two seah and [in a hole] three hand-breadths deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top. But the Sages say, it should not be less than four qab, one hand-breadth deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top, and should be stored where people step on it. Arum after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, he should settle with the poor. Rebbi Joshua says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, the poor have nothing to settle with him. Arum of the year before the Sabbatical entering the Sabbatical, as well as summer onions and madder growing on choice land, the House of Shammai say, one takes them out with wooden shovels but the House of Hillel say with iron spades. They agree that one takes out madder growing on slopes with iron spades. When may a person buy arum after the end of the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jehudah says, immediately. But the Sages say, after the new [crop] is dominant.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or material for dye and cannot be preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical and its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is subject to removal and its proceeds are subject to removal. What are these? This is the leaf of wild arum, mint, endives, leeks, purslain and milk bud. Animal feed, thistles and thorns. Dyestuffs, the wild growth of isatis and safflower. These are subject to the Sabbatical and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; both they and their proceeds are subject to removal. They established another principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or dyestuff and is preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical; its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is not subject to removal nor are its proceeds subject to removal. What are these? These are the root of wild arum, the root of mint, ceterach, ḥalbiẓin, and wild nard. Kinds of dyestuffs: madder and campeachy-wood. These and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; these and their proceeds are not subject to removal. Rebbi Meïr says, their proceeds have to be removed before New Year’s Day. They said to him, they do not have to be removed, a fortiori their proceeds. Pomegranate skins and its peduncles, nut shells, and pits are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. The dyer dyes for himself; he should not dye for payment because one does not treat the produce of the Sabbatical as merchandise, nor firstlings or heaves, carcasses, torn animals, abominations, and crawling things. One may not buy vegetables to sell them on the market but he may collect and his son sells for him. If he bought for himself and has leftovers, it is permitted to sell them. If somebody bought a first-born animal for his son’s wedding or for a holiday and now does not need it, he may sell it. Catchers of wild animals, birds, or fish who accidentally caught impure species may sell them. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who incidentally has such an opportunity may take and sell them on condition that this not be his profession, but the Sages prohibit it.