separates

The superiority of humanity isn't revealed, but exists in what's hidden. So it (humanity) masters animals that are stronger, that are greater in terms of that which is revealed and that which is hidden. This allows them to survive; but if humanity separates from them (the animals), they kill, bite, and eat each other, because they didn't find food. But now they've found food because humanity has worked the earth.

Marks off the boundary and separates

Concerning the elder who despises the bishop. If an elder despises a bishop and separates himself from him and builds for himself an altar, although no guilt is found in judgment against the bishop, and he is right in reference to the service of the Lord, let him be deposed ; for he is ambitious for office, and also all the priests who follow him, for he is a rebel. And the laymen who follow him shall be expelled. And this shall take place when the bishop shall have asked them once and a second time and a third time.

Concerning the canons I the same make a constitution. A bishop blesses, but does not receive the blessing. He lays on hands, ordains, offers, receives the blessing from bishops, but by no means from presbyters. A bishop deprives any clergyman who deserves deprivation, excepting a bishop; for of himself he has not power to do that. A presbyter blesses, but does not receive the blessing; yet does he receive the blessing from the bishop or a fellow presbyter. In like manner does he give it to a fellow presbyter. He lays on hands, but does not ordain; he does not deprive, yet does he separate those that are under him, if they be liable to such a punishment. A deacon does not bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon. A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency. A deacon separates a subdeacon, a reader, a singer, and a deaconess, if there be any occasion, in the absence of a presbyter. It is not lawful for a subdeacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons.

But by this time the Idumeans repented of their coming, and were displeased at what had been done; and when they were assembled together by one of the zealots, who had come privately to them, he declared to them what a number of wicked pranks they had themselves done in conjunction with those that invited them, and gave a particular account of what mischiefs had been done against their metropolis. He said that they had taken arms, as though the high priests were betraying their metropolis to the Romans, but had found no indication of any such treachery; but that they had succored those that had pretended to believe such a thing, while they did themselves the works of war and tyranny, after an insolent manner. It had been indeed their business to have hindered them from such their proceedings at the first, but seeing they had once been partners with them in shedding the blood of their own countrymen, it was high time to put a stop to such crimes, and not continue to afford any more assistance to such as are subverting the laws of their forefathers; for that if any had taken it ill that the gates had been shut against them, and they had not been permitted to come into the city, yet that those who had excluded them have been punished, and Ananus is dead, and that almost all those people had been destroyed in one night's time. That one may perceive many of themselves now repenting for what they had done, and might see the horrid barbarity of those that had invited them, and that they had no regard to such as had saved them; that they were so impudent as to perpetrate the vilest things, under the eyes of those that had supported them, and that their wicked actions would be laid to the charge of the Idumeans, and would be so laid to their charge till somebody obstructs their proceedings, or separates himself from the same wicked action; that they therefore ought to retire home, since the imputation of treason appears to be a Calumny, and that there was no expectation of the coming of the Romans at this time, and that the government of the city was secured by such walls as cannot easily be thrown down; and, by avoiding any further fellowship with these bad men, to make some excuse for themselves, as to what they had been so far deluded, as to have been partners with them hitherto.

Whatever there is within a bet rova [which separates different species] is included in the area of a bet rova: the space which vine roots consume, a grave, a rock, [all] count in the measure of a bet rova. [One who wants to sow one type of] grain [in a field of another type] of grain the measure is a bet rova. Vegetables within [a field of other] vegetables the measure is six handbreadths. Vegetables within [a field of] grain, or grain within [a field of] vegetables the measure is a bet rova. Rabbi Eliezer says: vegetables in [a field of] grain the measure is six handbreadths.

One who immerses [unclean] vessels on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may use them. But if intentionally, he may not use them. One who separates tithes, or cooks on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may eat it. But if intentionally, he may not eat it. One who plants on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may keep the tree. But if intentionally, he must uproot it. But if during the sabbatical year, whether [it was planted] unwittingly or intentionally he must uproot it.

One may not sell his straw, nor his olive peat, or his grape pulp to one who is not to be trusted in [with respect to] tithes, for him to extract the juice from them. If he did extract the juice he is liable for tithes, but is exempt from terumah, because when one separates terumah he has in mind the fragments which [is] by the sides, and that which is inside the straw.

If one separates his hallah [while it is still] flour, it is not hallah, and in the hand of a priest it is considered stolen property. The dough is still subject to hallah; And the flour, if there is the minimum quantity, it [also is] subject to hallah. And it is prohibited to non-priests, the words of Rabbi Joshua. They said to him: It happened that a non-priest sage seized it [for himself]. He said to them: He did something damaging to himself, but he benefited others.

How do they separate hallah on the festival [from dough which is] in [a state of] uncleanness? Rabbi Eliezer says: she should not call it [hallah] until it is baked. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: she should put [the dough] into cold water. Rabbi Joshua said: this is not the chametz concerning which we are warned with, “It shall not be seen”, and “It shall not be found”. Rather she separates it and leaves it until the evening, and if it ferments it ferments.

An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.

If a man sets aside a female for his pesah or a two-year old male, it should be left to graze until it becomes unfit, then it should be sold, and its money is spent on a voluntary sacrifice. If a man separates his pesah and dies, his son after him should not bring it as a pesah but rather as a wellbeing offering.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Hoshaiah: Only one should not mention less than three separations. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, they said that he who says little should not say less than three and he who adds should not add more than seven separations. Levi said, but only separations mentioned in the Torah. Naḥum ben Rebbi Simai went out and said in his father’s name: even one separation. But Rebbi Abbahu said, one must seal with “separation”. Rebbi Mana objected, even if he started by “He Who separates between holy and worldly” and ends, seals by “He Who separates between holy and worldly”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not from the benedictions that one starts with “praised” and ends with “praised”?

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Hoshaiah: Only one should not mention less than three separations. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, they said that he who says little should not say less than three and he who adds should not add more than seven separations. Levi said, but only separations mentioned in the Torah. Naḥum ben Rebbi Simai went out and said in his father’s name: even one separation. But Rebbi Abbahu said, one must seal with “separation”. Rebbi Mana objected, even if he started by “He Who separates between holy and worldly” and ends, seals by “He Who separates between holy and worldly”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not from the benedictions that one starts with “praised” and ends with “praised”?

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Even if a holiday falls in the middle of the week onerecites “He Who separates between Sabbath and the six workdays” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rav Yehudah: Has one six workdays before him? He said to him: Has one impurity and purity before him?

He who makes a mezuzah for himself, says “to make a mezuzah.” For somebody else, “to make a mezuzah for his name.” When he nails it to the doorpost, he recites: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to about mezuzah.” He who makes tefillin for himself, etc. For somebody else, etc. When he puts them on, he says “about the commandment of tefillin.” He who makes ẓiẓit for himself, etc. For somebody else etc. When he wraps himself in them, etc.. He who separates terumah and tithes says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to separate terumah and tithes.” For somebody else, “to separate terumah and tithes for his name.” He who slaughters must say: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about šeḥitah.” He who covers [the blood] says, “about covering the blood.”

It cannot be connected. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees, but we have stated there (Mishnah 3): “Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees.” Hence, by a fence it is connected and not connected! If you say it is connected, even hair pressing down does not separate, since we have stated: “Hair pressing down does not separate but he gives one peah for all!” That means that it is not connected. If you say it is connected then it should separate if it is one-sided, as we have stated: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates

It cannot be connected. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees, but we have stated there (Mishnah 3): “Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees.” Hence, by a fence it is connected and not connected! If you say it is connected, even hair pressing down does not separate, since we have stated: “Hair pressing down does not separate but he gives one peah for all!” That means that it is not connected. If you say it is connected then it should separate if it is one-sided, as we have stated: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates

It cannot be connected. If you would say that it is connected, it should separate even a field of trees, but we have stated there (Mishnah 3): “Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees.” Hence, by a fence it is connected and not connected! If you say it is connected, even hair pressing down does not separate, since we have stated: “Hair pressing down does not separate but he gives one peah for all!” That means that it is not connected. If you say it is connected then it should separate if it is one-sided, as we have stated: “If the hair was pressing down from both sides it does not separate.” Hence, from one side only it separates

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.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue separates for peah. Rav Ḥisda investigated whether they were used by Joshua to divide the Land. Rebbi Ḥanina asserted in the name of Rav Ḥisda: they were used by Joshua to fix the boundaries of the Land.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

MISHNAH: An irrigation canal that cannot be harvested together, Rebbi Jehudah says it separates. For all hills subject to weeding, even if cattle can not pass by with their implements, he gives one peah for everything.

HALAKHAH: They wanted to say that there is no disagreement. It was found stated: “A permanent irrigation canal separates”

They wanted to say: What Rebbi Jehudah talks about is one who stands on one bank and cannot cut on the other bank, but if he stands in the middle and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated in disagreement: “If he was standing in the middle and harvesting on both banks, it separates; on one bank it does not separate.”

Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a rock along the length of his entire field, if he has to lift the plough from one side and transport it to the other side, it separates, from the other side it does not separate. But did we not state: “For terraces which are each ten hand-breadths higher than the other, he must give peah for each one separately. Less than that he gives one peah for all of them.” But for less than that, does he not have to lift the plough from one (terrace) and transport it to the other? Even for less than that he has to lift it. We had to state “ten” only because of the concluding statement: “If the heads of the terraces are connected, he gives one peah for all.”

MISHNAH: Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees. But if hair was pressing down it does not separate and he gives one peah for all. : But for carob trees all that see one another. Rabban Gamliel said, in my father’s house they used to give one peah for the olive trees they had in every direction and for all carobs that saw one another. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said in the former’s name: also for all carob trees they had in the entire town.

MISHNAH: Everything separates for seeds but only a fence separates for trees. But if hair was pressing down it does not separate and he gives one peah for all. : But for carob trees all that see one another. Rabban Gamliel said, in my father’s house they used to give one peah for the olive trees they had in every direction and for all carobs that saw one another. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said in the former’s name: also for all carob trees they had in the entire town.

HALAKHAH: “Everything separates for seeds.” What is pressing down? It rises while pressing as in a mortar or must it press down on the fence? From the text “hair was pressing down,” the fence does not press. That means it presses down on the fence.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “If one buys from the baker, how does he tithe?” There you say, the buyer separates, and here you say, the baker separates. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One says, here if he works in purity, there if he works in impurity. The other says, here in retail, there in wholesale. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of purity, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar is the one who said, here in retail, there in wholesale. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he works in purity, let him separate everything. It would be logical that he should not give anything because one does not deliver certain grain to the am haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if it is in retail, let him separate everything. Grocers are not permitted to sell demay!

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “If one buys from the baker, how does he tithe?” There you say, the buyer separates, and here you say, the baker separates. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One says, here if he works in purity, there if he works in impurity. The other says, here in retail, there in wholesale. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of purity, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar is the one who said, here in retail, there in wholesale. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he works in purity, let him separate everything. It would be logical that he should not give anything because one does not deliver certain grain to the am haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if it is in retail, let him separate everything. Grocers are not permitted to sell demay!

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe is on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer. Where do we stand? If in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If in wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he says it is of his own harvest. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say it is not his own harvest, if he says in my opinion it was brought in order, even so they tell him that it is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe be on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe is on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer. Where do we stand? If in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If in wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he says it is of his own harvest. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say it is not his own harvest, if he says in my opinion it was brought in order, even so they tell him that it is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe be on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer.

There we have stated: “The worker who does not trust the employer.” There you say, the worker separates. But here you say that the employer separates. Rebbi Jonah said, there if he serves him counted portions, here if he lets him eat from the bowl.

There we have stated: “The worker who does not trust the employer.” There you say, the worker separates. But here you say that the employer separates. Rebbi Jonah said, there if he serves him counted portions, here if he lets him eat from the bowl.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that one must separate tithes as a matter of practice. Hence, Rebbi Simeon says that one separates, and the rabbis say that one saparates

.What is the difference between them? Rebbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe? Maybe it was said on the principle of ṭevel for produce of the Gentile? Since we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice.

.What is the difference between them? Rebbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe? Maybe it was said on the principle of ṭevel for produce of the Gentile? Since we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who buys loose produce from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe. But he who buys produce still in the ground from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and does not take money from the tribe. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you remove the tithe from the Children of Israel.” From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the hand of a Gentile.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who buys loose produce from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe. But he who buys produce still in the ground from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and does not take money from the tribe. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you remove the tithe from the Children of Israel.” From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the hand of a Gentile.

In addition, from the following: Rebbi Zeïra said, Abba the Anatolian bought produce from an Aramean; he came before Rebbi Judah ben Levi who sent his son Menaḥem to put it in order; he gave him his tithes. When he returned, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, who else but your father would do such a thing? The arguments of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are inverted. There, he says that he who buys loose produce from a Gentile, separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives them to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe; and here he says so! Rebbi Abba bar Zamina said before Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simon does not say so, but when he returned, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, this does not belong to your father. Rebbi Zeïra was offended.

MISHNAH: He who receives a field as sharecropper from a Jew, a Gentile, or a Samaritan, distributes in their presence. He who leases a field from a Jew separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Jehudah says, when is that? When he gives from that field and from that kind. But if he gives from another field or from another kind, he must tithe and give him. He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who is a sharecropper for a Gentile on a field that used to belong to his family tithes and delivers to 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.”

“If he received a field to harvest for wheat, grapes to harvest for wine, olives to harvest for oil, he tithes before he delivers.” Come and see: Before he sows, he separates heave; after it was sown, he tithes? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they made a special decree for the sharecropper, so that the Land of Israel should not lie fallow. But here it is already sown.

“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.

What did he save? From his food he separates the heave of the tithe.

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.

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 separates parts of heave or tithes, he takes from this its own heave or tithes but not for another place. Rebbi Meїr says, he may even take it for another place.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes,” etc. Our Mishnah [is said] in case he separated and it is his intention to separate more. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, our Mishnah [is said] if he did not say anything. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Do they disagree? He said to him, if he did not say anything, it is as if it were his intention to separate more.

What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult: If he took [produce] with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took [produce] with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is ṭevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is ṭevel. If he added, both together came into his hand.

MISHNAH: If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, one may separate another eight se’ot and eat them, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he separates only according to the computation.

Let us hear from the following: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient. Rebbi Ṭarphon declared pure and Rebbi Aqiba impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rebbi Aqiba said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rebbi Aqiba said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, how is that, Aqiba? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to Rebbi Aqiba, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

MISHNAH: Fenugreek that fell into a water cistern, for heave and second tithe if the seeds are enough to impart taste, disregarding the wood. But for the Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, and dedicated seeds, if seeds and wood together impart taste. If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of kilaim from a vineyard, they should be burned. If he had bundles of fenugreek from ṭevel, he pounds them and computes how much seed this contains and separates the seeds but not the wood. If he separated, he should not say I shall pound, take the wood, and give the seeds but he gives seeds with the wood.

“What is obligated among bitter almonds is free among sweet almonds”, small ones; “what is obligated among the sweet is free among the bitter”, large ones. “ Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: Bitter almonds are free; sweet ones are not obligated before the outer shell separates.” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed in Sepphoris following that statement of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. What did he instruct about? The people of Sepphoris said, about bitter ones. Rebbi Zeїra said, about sweet ones. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they came down here they would become obligated. If they are brought up, they already are free. Rebbi Phineas instructed: After one saw three with detached outer shell, he gives heave for the entire box. Rebbi Mana said, only he may not give heave from one box for another.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

So far something that has no threshing floor; but of produce from the threshing floor one separates heave of the tithe but does not need to give Great Heave as it was stated: “ If he found cleaned grain on the field, in a heap it is forbidden because of robbery, dispersed it is permitted because of robbery. In any case it is subject to tithes but free from Great Heave because no threshing floor is cleared unless Great Heave was taken.”

Capers and budding fruits are one kind; one tithes from capers for budding fruit and from budding fruit for capers but not from both for ripe fruits or from ripe fruits for them. On the ripe fruits one applies the stringencies of both trees and vegetables. In which respect? If it is after the second year going into the third, he separates, redeems, and gives it to the poor.

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

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you said that there are two ḥallot in Syria, should there not be two heaves in Syria? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, there comes nothing after ḥallah but after heave there comes something. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates were ṭevel for tithes!

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

HALAKHAH: “With what may a woman go out,” etc. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, because she loosens them because they separate for her period and she forgets and walks with them for four cubits. Rebbi Mana said, earlier we were saying because she opens what is sewn but we were not saying anything, as Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates one may tear and open but only one may not tie. There, we have stated: “The following separate on a human: threads of wool or of linen and the ribbons on the head of girls.” Samuel said, there is no hair here; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, but only wool. Therefore hair does not separate in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of the rabbis: One hair separates, two are in doubt, three do not separate.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

So is the Mishnah: One separates an egg in the sieve of mustard seed. A lump of mustard seed? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one squeezes by hand but not with a tool. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One may squeeze both by hand and with a tool. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to him, do not the dogs make it so? [There came] Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One may squeeze both by hand and with a tool.

MISHNAH: One unties bundles of straw for animals and one separates packages but not sheaves. One does not crush green stalks or carob for animals whether small or large; Rebbi Jehudah permits carob for small animals.

MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough. Deaf dough is forbidden if a similar kind became sour.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

MISHNAH: How does one separate ḥallah in impurity on the holiday? Rebbi Eliezer says, it should not be given a name until after it is baked. Ben Bathyra says, one should keep it in cold water. Rebbi Joshua said, this is not leavening where one is warned that it should not be seen nor found, but one separates it and leaves it until the evening, and if it fermented, it fermented.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after rolling. But if it became impure before rolling, he should make them into pieces of single qab. If it was kneaded on the holiday. But if it was kneaded before the holiday, it is as it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it? Following that of Rebbi Ismael: With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary, what was said in the matter. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days.

Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it? Following that of Rebbi Ismael: With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary, what was said in the matter. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days.

Ben Bathyra explained: Perhaps he would sleep with his menstruating wife and be pushed away all of seven days. But are Israel suspected about menstruating women? Following what was stated there: “If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately he is liable, for his separation is as pleasurable to him as his entry.” You have to say that he who transmits the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan needs that of Ben Bathyra, and he who transmits the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan needs that of Ben Bathyra. If Rebbi Joḥanan had said but not Ben Bathyra, we would have said that he may have sex but sleep in the Palhedrin lodge; therefore one needs that of Ben Bathyra. If Ben Bathyra had said but not Rebbi Joḥanan , we would have said, let him not have sex but he may sleep in his house; therefore one needs that of Rebbi Joḥanan , and one needs that of Ben Bathyra.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

Fine. What does the verse say? Because it was said, you shall pulverize it finely. Then why is it said, fine? That it be most fine. What does he do? He separates the mina on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and returns it to the mortar to fill from it his fistful to observe “most fine.”

HALAKHAH: But only if all conditions are satisfied. It sees but does not hear; for example Jerusalem up high and it below. Hears but does not see; a mountain interrupts. Sees and hears but cannot come; outside the Sabbath domain. Sees, and hears, and is near, but is unable to come; a river separates. Rebbi Jonah asked, if it were able to come by an eruv? Just as you are saying in Jerusalem, that one blows in any village which sees, and hears, and is near, and is able to come, should we not say the same at Jabneh? Jerusalem is by word of the Torah and the nearby villages by word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan would institute according to the words of the Torah. Jabneh is by their words, and the close by villages would be by their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai would institute by their words. Does there exist institution after institution?

It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation! One because of the other. And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

There are Tannaim who state that one separates with Cilician cloth, and there are Tannaim who state that one does not separate. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one separates, for healthy {hair}; he who said one does not separate, for weak {hair}.