shammai

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

MISHNAH: Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch. The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

MISHNAH: Until when may one plough an orchard in the year preceding the Sabbatical? The House of Shammai say, as long as it helps the fruits, the House of Hillel say, until Pentecost. Their words do not differ by much.

Why did we not state this with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? Sometimes there is no rain and no moisture and he would plough only before Pentecost following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, until Pentecost.

Why did we not state this with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? Sometimes there is no rain and no moisture and he would plough only before Pentecost following the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, until Pentecost.

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough,” etc. Who is the Tanna who considers humidity? He is Rebbi Meïr. Then Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel? It must be that Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah? But for Rebbi Meïr it is taught as a disagreement and for Rebbi Simeon it is the opinion of everybody. Hence, the author of “until when may one plough a shadeless field in the year preceding the Sabbatical” is Rebbi Meïr, but following Rebbi Simeon everybody agrees to “until Pentecost.”

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough,” etc. Who is the Tanna who considers humidity? He is Rebbi Meïr. Then Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel? It must be that Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah? But for Rebbi Meïr it is taught as a disagreement and for Rebbi Simeon it is the opinion of everybody. Hence, the author of “until when may one plough a shadeless field in the year preceding the Sabbatical” is Rebbi Meïr, but following Rebbi Simeon everybody agrees to “until Pentecost.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Kippar said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Shammua‘ that the House of Shammai say, one waters the leaves and it trickles down to the root, but the House of Hillel say, one waters both on the leaves and on the root.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai one watered with a basket. Rebbi Yaakov bar Zavdi said: Rebbi Isaac ben Tevele watered with a basket. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yudan bar Guria watered with a basket and hoed. Did he intend to work the land? In the days of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba they watered date palms with new brooms and dried branches

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The Mishnah refers to the prohibition of the two terms. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” Does this not refer to the prohibition of the two terms, so here also about the prohibition of the two terms. Rebbi Shammai inquired: If this is about the prohibition of the two terms, did we state that one is permitted to plough but forbidden to build? So it must refer to the permission of the two terms. If it refers to the permission of the two terms, we have stated: “But he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.” Rebbi Mana said, is Rebbi Shammai correct? In the first case, one is permitted to plough because that prepares for the year after the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to build since that prepares for the Sabbatical. The Mishnah does not say so, “but he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The Mishnah refers to the prohibition of the two terms. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” Does this not refer to the prohibition of the two terms, so here also about the prohibition of the two terms. Rebbi Shammai inquired: If this is about the prohibition of the two terms, did we state that one is permitted to plough but forbidden to build? So it must refer to the permission of the two terms. If it refers to the permission of the two terms, we have stated: “But he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.” Rebbi Mana said, is Rebbi Shammai correct? In the first case, one is permitted to plough because that prepares for the year after the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to build since that prepares for the Sabbatical. The Mishnah does not say so, “but he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.”

MISHNAH: A field that had been cleared of thistles may be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. [A field] improved or fertilized should not be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. A field that was improved, the House of Shammai say one does not eat its produce in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel say one does. The House of Shammai say one does not eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity, but the House of Hillel say in reciprocity and without reciprocity. Rebbi Jehudah says it the other way around; this is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: A field that had been cleared of thistles may be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. [A field] improved or fertilized should not be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. A field that was improved, the House of Shammai say one does not eat its produce in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel say one does. The House of Shammai say one does not eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity, but the House of Hillel say in reciprocity and without reciprocity. Rebbi Jehudah says it the other way around; this is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: A field that had been cleared of thistles may be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. [A field] improved or fertilized should not be sown at the end of the Sabbatical year. A field that was improved, the House of Shammai say one does not eat its produce in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel say one does. The House of Shammai say one does not eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity, but the House of Hillel say in reciprocity and without reciprocity. Rebbi Jehudah says it the other way around; this is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and stringencies of the House of Hillel.

A similar case: When does a man acquire Sabbatical fruit? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, when he puts them in his vessels. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, even if he puts them into his vessels he did not acquire them; he thinks that they are his but they are not his. Compare the following: Rebbi Tarphon went to eat single figs from somebody’s property without reciprocity, following the House of Shammai. The watchmen saw him and started whipping him. When he saw himself in danger, he said to them, by your lives, tell in Tarphon’s house to have his burial shrouds ready. When they heard this, they prostrated themselves before him and said, Rebbi, forgive us. He said to them, so and so should come upon me if I did not forgive you beforehand every stick that was coming down on me. In these two instances did Rebbi Tarphon follow the House of Shammai and endangered himself, in the case here and in the recitation of Shema'. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: All his life did Rebbi Tarphon repent about this happening and said, woe to me that I used the Crown of the Torah.

A similar case: When does a man acquire Sabbatical fruit? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, when he puts them in his vessels. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, even if he puts them into his vessels he did not acquire them; he thinks that they are his but they are not his. Compare the following: Rebbi Tarphon went to eat single figs from somebody’s property without reciprocity, following the House of Shammai. The watchmen saw him and started whipping him. When he saw himself in danger, he said to them, by your lives, tell in Tarphon’s house to have his burial shrouds ready. When they heard this, they prostrated themselves before him and said, Rebbi, forgive us. He said to them, so and so should come upon me if I did not forgive you beforehand every stick that was coming down on me. In these two instances did Rebbi Tarphon follow the House of Shammai and endangered himself, in the case here and in the recitation of Shema'. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: All his life did Rebbi Tarphon repent about this happening and said, woe to me that I used the Crown of the Torah.

MISHNAH: If somebody thins out olive trees, the House of Shammai say he should cut them off, the House of Hillel say he may take out the roots, but they agree that one who levels may only cut off. What is thinning? One or two. Levelling are three adjacent to one another. When has this been said? On his own property. But from another’s property, even one who flattens may take out the roots. If somebody cuts down an olive tree, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. If somebody cuts down a sycamore trunk, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. One does not cut a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical year because that is [agricultural] work. Rebbi Jehudah says, in a normal way it is forbidden but he [may] cut higher than ten hand-breadths or cut it down level with the ground.

: Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel. Can we come to state that Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel? But Rebbi Yose the Galilean worries about agricultural work.

: Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel. Can we come to state that Rebbi Yose the Galilean follows the House of Shammai, Rebbi Aqiba follows the House of Hillel? But Rebbi Yose the Galilean worries about agricultural work.

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

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

MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted. The seller may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.

“The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed: If he sold it during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle.

MISHNAH: Sabbatical produce should not be sold by measure, weight, or count. Figs may not be sold by count nor vegetables by weight. The House of Shammai say, not [vegetables] in bundles. But the House of Hillel say, anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market; for example leeks and milk bud.

Is Sabbatical straw forbidden as aftergrowth? Rebbi Levi from Sennabaris asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda and he permitted it. Rebbi Zeïra said, since I did not want to rely on myself I asked those from Beit Barsana and they said, we used to collect straw before the start of the Sabbatical and when we are running out, we bring it from the walls. Rebbi Jeremiah said, a baraita states that it is permitted, as it was stated: “Dyers and cattle feeders may buy coarse bran from everywhere without worry.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, even from one who is suspect. Rebbi Yose said to him, they said that only if he does not know whether he is suspect. Only if he might not be suspect; therefore if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Rebbi Shammai said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden, as we have stated there: “In matters of Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, or dedicated things, if there is enough in both seed and wood to give taste.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with permitted produce. For that we stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, it should be given to those who eat it. Since Rebbi Eliezer is a Shammaiite, did we state: One does eat Sabbatical produce in reciprocity and without reciprocity, following the House of Shammai? For that, the rabbis answer him that the sinner should not be rewarded? They answered him according to his argument: Against your argument, when you say that it should be given to those who eat it, a sinner should not be rewarded.

Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future? Rebbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future.

MISHNAH: One may not give olives as heave for oil nor grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say they contain their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

There, we have stated: “One may not give heave from impure for pure produce.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If he gave heave from impure for pure produce, what he did is done.” What does Rebbi Yose say here? If there, where all is lost for the Cohanim, he says that what he did is done, here, where not all is lost for the Cohanim, so much more? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say it contains their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.” Rebbi Yose contradicts himself. There he says, what he did is done; here he says, his heave is not heave. There, impurity is infrequent and people will not err to say that one may give heave from the impure on the pure produce. But olives for oil and grapes for wine is frequent; if you say so, one will say that one may give heave of olives for oil and grapes for wine.

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second [tithe], the House of Hillel say, after one removed first [tithe]. Rebbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rebbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”

It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second [tithe], the House of Hillel say, after one removed first [tithe]. Rebbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rebbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”

It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second [tithe], the House of Hillel say, after one removed first [tithe]. Rebbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rebbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.

Rebbi Hoshaia bar Shammai said, if he had before him two seot and one heap and said, one of the seot is heave for this heap, he sanctified them and it is not known which one is sanctified. If he had before him two heaps and one seah and said, this is heave for one of the heaps, one is put in order but we do not known which one.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and he says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only if he intended to dedicate but he erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.

“The House of Shammai say, [one] in thirty.” “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.” Average, one in forty, following Samuel. Stingy, one in sixty following Rebbi Levi. As Rebbi Levi bar Ḥina said, he who takes out his tithes following the rules does not lose. What is the reason? (Ez. 45:11) “The ephah shall be one tenth of a ḥomer, its measure shall be from the ḥomer.” For what do you need that? As we say, “if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more;” so the House of Shammai say, if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.

“The House of Shammai say, [one] in thirty.” “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.” Average, one in forty, following Samuel. Stingy, one in sixty following Rebbi Levi. As Rebbi Levi bar Ḥina said, he who takes out his tithes following the rules does not lose. What is the reason? (Ez. 45:11) “The ephah shall be one tenth of a ḥomer, its measure shall be from the ḥomer.” For what do you need that? As we say, “if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more;” so the House of Shammai say, if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as dema‘.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as dema‘.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree and I will eat my fill from yours,’ he who eats his fill is free and he who eats a fixed number is obligated.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Can a person not eat one by one with permission and be free? He said to him, yes. Then why is he obligated here? He said to him, when he takes them together. If he takes them together, even he who eats his fill should be obligated! Is he not forbidden because of barter? Rebbi Shammai said, there is no barter since this man only wanted to make him hungry that he should eat.

Why do I need “on condition”? Even without “on condition”! Rebbi Avin in the name of Rebbi Shammai: It is necessary, even if he says “on condition”!

Our Mishnah follows the House of Shammai who say, all has the status of inside. It was stated: If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai.13

Our Mishnah follows the House of Shammai who say, all has the status of inside. It was stated: If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai.13

MISHNAH: If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed. A Sabbath basket the House of Shammai free but the House of Hillel obligate. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who fills a harvesting basket to send to a friend may not eat from it unless he tithed. He who takes olives from the vat may dip them singly into salt and eat them, but if he salted them as a dish he is obligated. Rebbi Eliezer says, from a pure vat he is obligated but from an impure one he is free because he might put the leftovers back [into the vat]. One may drink from the winepress both warm or cold and is free, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq declares him obligated. But the Sages say, for warm drink he is obligated, cold he is free.

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 Ḥanina 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.

“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow, he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.

Rebbi Zevida was sitting and teaching his son: “if somebody wants to exchange [tithe] money for produce today, both these and those are consecrated, the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, the money is as it was and the produce is as it was.” Rebbi Crispus passed by and told him, do not state it so but say “produce for money.” Therefore, everybody agrees that money for produce was not consecrated. But did we not state: “if there is no Temple they should be left to rot”? Explain it if he dedicated it when there was a Temple and the Temple was destroyed.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

What is the reason of Shammai? Maybe he will forget and treat it as profane!

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.

MISHNAH: A tree which stands inside and [its crown] extends outside, or stands outside and extends inside, what is above the wall and inside is like inside, above the wall and outside is like outside. Oil presses whose entrances are inside but their space extends to the outside or whose entrances are outside but their space extends to the inside, the House of Shammai say it is all counted as inside, but the House of Hillel say what is under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. If chambers are built in the holy precinct and open to the profane domain, their insides are profane but their roofs holy. If they are built in the profane domain but open to the holy precinct, their insides are holy but their roofs profane. If they are built in the holy and the profane and open both to the holy and the profane, their insides and their roofs, over the holy and in direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.

MISHNAH: Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity or from derivative impurity, inside [the city] or outside, the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside. But the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.