shammai

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say: Light, Grace, spices and Havdalah. But the House of Hillel say, Light, spices, Grace, and Havdalah. The House of Shammai say: “He Who created illumination by fire.” But the House of Hillel say, “He Who is creating illuminations by fire.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel did not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Yehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yehudah said, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel did not disagree that Grace comes first and Havdalah at the end. They disagree only over light and spices because the House of Shammai say spices and afterwards light, but the house of Hillel say light and afterwards spices.” Rebbi Abba and Rav Yehudah: Practice follows him who says spices and afterwards light.

The House of Shammai say, the cup in his right hand and perfumed oil in his left hand; first he says the benediction over the cup and then over the perfumed oil. The House of Hillel say, perfumed oil in his right hand and the cup in his left hand, he recites the benediction over the perfumed oil and rubs it on the head of the waiter. But if the waiter was learned, he would rub it on the wall because it does no credit to the learned to walk around perfumed.

According to the opinion of the House of Shammai, should one not say: “He Who created the fruit of the vine?” According to the opinion of the House of Hillel, one should say: “Creator of the fruit of the vine.” Wine is new every year; fire is not different every hour.

MISHNAH: He who ate, forgot, and did not recite Grace. The House of Shammai say, he should return to his place and recite. The House of Hillel say, he should recite at the place where he remembers it. How long may he recite? Until the food is digested in his bowels.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said: Two Amoraïm, one proposed the reason of the House of Shammai and the other proposed the reason of the House of Hillel. He who proposed the reason of the House of Shammai: If he had forgotten there a wallet full of precious stones and pearls, would he not go back and retrieve his wallet? Here also, let him return to his place and recite Grace. He who proposed the reason of the House of Hillel: A worker who worked at the top of a date palm or at the bottom of a cistern, would one bother him to return and recite Grace? No, he should recite at the place where he remembers. So here also, he should recite at the place where he remembers.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said: Two Amoraïm, one proposed the reason of the House of Shammai and the other proposed the reason of the House of Hillel. He who proposed the reason of the House of Shammai: If he had forgotten there a wallet full of precious stones and pearls, would he not go back and retrieve his wallet? Here also, let him return to his place and recite Grace. He who proposed the reason of the House of Hillel: A worker who worked at the top of a date palm or at the bottom of a cistern, would one bother him to return and recite Grace? No, he should recite at the place where he remembers. So here also, he should recite at the place where he remembers.

MISHNAH: If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup. The House of Shammai say, he recites the benediction over wine and afterwards says Grace, but the House of Hillel say, he recites Grace and afterwards the benediction over wine. One answers “Amen” after a Jew but one does not answer “Amen” after a Samaritan unless one has heard the entire benediction.

Our Mishnah is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say (Mishnah 6:1): “Property abandoned to the poor is ownerless property.”

Our Mishnah is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say (Mishnah 6:1): “Property abandoned to the poor is ownerless property.”

The Mishnah, if they cut to destroy it. But if they do not cut to destroy it, it is obligated. Rebbi Hoshaia ben Shammai said, even if you say that they do not cut to destroy it, it is free since peah is given from standing produce and real estate cannot be robbed.

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.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.

What are we dealing with? If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones.

What are we dealing with? If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees. Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables, so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say that property abandoned to the poor is abandoned. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that it is free from tithes because property abandoned by a court order is abandoned. It is written (Ezra 10:8): “Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction.” From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say that property abandoned to the poor is abandoned. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that it is free from tithes because property abandoned by a court order is abandoned. It is written (Ezra 10:8): “Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction.” From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain.

What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned, but the House of Hillel say, it is not abandoned unless it is abandoned also to the rich, as in a Sabbatical year. If all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one, the House of Shammai say, it cannot be a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it can be a forgotten sheaf.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned, but the House of Hillel say, it is not abandoned unless it is abandoned also to the rich, as in a Sabbatical year. If all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one, the House of Shammai say, it cannot be a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it can be a forgotten sheaf.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere is for the poor and not for the rich.

How do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”

How do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”

What are we discussing? If it should be recognizable, two would be enough. If for a row, three would be enough. One scholar quoted this statement by Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Anything he can split and make into a row following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah: That goes by proportionality; “if all sheaves of a field are of one qab each, except one which is of four qab and they forgot about that one,” if all sheaves of a field are of two qab each, except one which is of eight qab.

MISHNAH: A sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it is a forgotten sheaf.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult about the House of Shammai; closure and stack are definite things, and they say it is not a forgotten sheaf. It is difficult about the House of Hillel; cattle and vessels are not definite things, and they say it is a forgotten sheaf.

“By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence.” This Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. There a stationary object is beside a stationary one, but here a movable object is beside a stationary one.

“By its place, if it was standing beside the wine press or beside a breach in the fence.” This Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. There a stationary object is beside a stationary one, but here a movable object is beside a stationary one.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

MISHNAH: Two sheaves may qualify as forgotten sheaves, three may not. Two heaps of olives or carob may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two plants of hemp may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two berries may qualify as dropped berries, three may not. Two stalks may be gleanings, three may not, following the House of Hillel. About all of these, the House of Shammai say three are for the poor and four for the proprietor.

Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (Deut.24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor, and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor.

Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (Deut.24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor, and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

How does it work out? If he forgot one sheaf next to it, if you make it a sheaf, everybody agrees that it is “forgotten sheaf.” If you make it a stack, a difference between Shammai and Hillel. If he forgot two sheaves, if you make it sheaves, a difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel; if you make it a stack it will not be considered a row.

“By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall.” Is our Mishnah following the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; there it is movable near immovable, here it is immovable near immovable.

“By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall.” Is our Mishnah following the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; there it is movable near immovable, here it is immovable near immovable.

It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai: When he puts away the knee cushion and finishes, then he still has at the top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The remainder of the harvest. Rebbi Abbahu said, that which takes care of the hidden ones: (1Sam. 23:23) “Find out and see all the hiding places where he could hide.”

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year, the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year, the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, 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. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, 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. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

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

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.

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.

Samuel bar Abba asked: 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, there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe, there should not be any fourth year after planting. Rebbi Yose said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there is the tithe for the poor. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.

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

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

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

MISHNAH: He who buys as seeds or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub on vessels, is free from demay. From Akhzib and further he is free from demay. Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay. Sweet oil, the House of Shammai declare it obligated but the House of Hillel declare it free.

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.

It is difficult for the House of Shammai, should he lose because he is worthy? He adds what he has to put in order. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Even if you regulate him now, can you regulate him in the future? You cannot regulate him. What is the reason of the rabbis? If you investigate him he will reduce his charity giving.

It is difficult for the House of Shammai, should he lose because he is worthy? He adds what he has to put in order. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Even if you regulate him now, can you regulate him in the future? You cannot regulate him. What is the reason of the rabbis? If you investigate him he will reduce his charity giving.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Shammai, in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, understood this from the following. “He who wants to separate heave and the heave of the tithe together.” As you will say there, except for that which may become sanctified as heave, here also except for that which may become sanctified as ḥallah.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver. The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver. The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place.

Rebbi Zeïra said, the reason of the House of Shammai is that a ḥaver should never sell olives to anybody but one who tithes.

“ They used to graft quince onto pears in the markets of Sepphoris. A student saw them and said to them, you are forbidden [to do so.] They went and cut them down. Then they went and asked at Jabneh. They said to them, the one who hit you was from the students of the House of Shammai.” It says only, quince on a pear tree. Hence, not a pear tree on a ḥizrar.

MISHNAH: If someone wants to make his field into separate garden beds of different kinds, the House of Shammai say, three furrows of the ploughshare, and the House of Hillel say, the width of a Sharon yoke. Both criteria are close to one another.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

But for tending a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6 cubits. But did we not state: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row of five vines, the House of Shammai say that this is a vineyard. But the House of Hillel say, [a planting] is not a vineyard unless it has two rows. Therefore, if somebody sows within four cubits of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctifies one row, but the House of Hillel say, two rows.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row of five vines, the House of Shammai say that this is a vineyard. But the House of Hillel say, [a planting] is not a vineyard unless it has two rows. Therefore, if somebody sows within four cubits of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctifies one row, but the House of Hillel say, two rows.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult. Is it not forbidden anyhow for the House of Shammai as a vineyard? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. In that case, it would not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence. Rebbi Jonah inquired: May one sow in between? Is it in a straight line, that you say it is forbidden to sow in between? May one sow between the vines? As you say in the case of a row of gourds that it is forbidden to sow in between the pits, so here also it is forbidden to sow in between the vines.