sheaves

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.

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.

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.

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.

MISHNAH: Heads of rows, the sheaf next to it proves, and a sheaf that was taken up to be brought to town and then was forgotten, they all agree that they never are forgotten sheaves. The following describe heads of rows: Two who started in the middle of the row, one turned North and the other turned South, and they forgot before them or after them. The one before them is a forgotten sheaf, the one after them is not a forgotten sheaf. A single person who started at the head of a row and forgot before and after himself. The one before him is not a forgotten sheaf, but the one after him is a forgotten sheaf because it falls under (Deut. 24:19) “do not return to take it.” This is the principle: Anything that falls under “do not return to take it,” is a forgotten sheaf, but anything that does not fall under “do not return to take it,” is not a forgotten sheaf.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves.

“The sheaf next to it proves.” How is that? (Tosephta Peah 3:4): “If he had ten rows of ten sheaves each and he removed one row of them in a North-South direction; when he forgot one of them it is not forgotten because it is considered East-West.” When he then removed the sheaves East-West and forgot one of them, let us hear from the following: When he removed the first, second, and third sheaves but forgot the fourth, some state: If he removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten. Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth” if there is a sixth, but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth” if there is no sixth. Before he took away the fifth, would not the fourth be apt to be considered starting a row? If this is named “forgotten,” then also in our case it is “forgotten.”

“The sheaf next to it proves.” How is that? (Tosephta Peah 3:4): “If he had ten rows of ten sheaves each and he removed one row of them in a North-South direction; when he forgot one of them it is not forgotten because it is considered East-West.” When he then removed the sheaves East-West and forgot one of them, let us hear from the following: When he removed the first, second, and third sheaves but forgot the fourth, some state: If he removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten. Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth” if there is a sixth, but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth” if there is no sixth. Before he took away the fifth, would not the fourth be apt to be considered starting a row? If this is named “forgotten,” then also in our case it is “forgotten.”

“The sheaf next to it proves.” How is that? (Tosephta Peah 3:4): “If he had ten rows of ten sheaves each and he removed one row of them in a North-South direction; when he forgot one of them it is not forgotten because it is considered East-West.” When he then removed the sheaves East-West and forgot one of them, let us hear from the following: When he removed the first, second, and third sheaves but forgot the fourth, some state: If he removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten, but some state: If he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth, it becomes legally forgotten. Rebbi Avin bar Ḥiyya said, he who says, “if he removed the fifth” if there is a sixth, but he who says, “if he waited long enough that he could have removed the fifth” if there is no sixth. Before he took away the fifth, would not the fourth be apt to be considered starting a row? If this is named “forgotten,” then also in our case it is “forgotten.”

(Tosephta Peah 3:4) “A field whose sheaves are mixed up, if one was forgotten it is not a forgotten sheaf until he removes all around it.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce. But a sheaf saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk. A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain, also trees, garlic and onions do not combine. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle, they do not combine, otherwise they do combine.

MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce. But a sheaf saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk. A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain, also trees, garlic and onions do not combine. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle, they do not combine, otherwise they do combine.

MISHNAH: Standing produce saves sheaves and standing produce. But a sheaf saves neither sheaves nor standing produce. What is standing produce that saves sheaves? Everything that is not forgotten, even if it is only one stalk. A seah of uprooted grain and a seah of not uprooted grain, also trees, garlic and onions do not combine. Rebbi Yose says, if a poor man’s right comes in the middle, they do not combine, otherwise they do combine.

Then the cut grain should save the uncut grain. This means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonathan said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves.

Then the cut grain should save the uncut grain. This means that something that is apt to save, but was forgotten, can become legally forgotten. Rebbi Jonathan said, explain it if he was cutting and removing the sheaves row by row. He already forgot the standing grain before he might forget the sheaves.

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks, or a blind person, are subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if he intended only to take the large pieces, he is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he said: “I harvest on the understanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves.

MISHNAH: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks, or a blind person, are subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if he intended only to take the large pieces, he is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he said: “I harvest on the understanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves.

MISHNAH: He who harvests at night or removes the stacks, or a blind person, are subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. But if he intended only to take the large pieces, he is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. If he said: “I harvest on the understanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves.

Rebbi Jonah said, not only for the large pieces, but also for the thin pieces. Since he is going to check for the large ones, the thin ones likewise are not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves.

If he said: “I harvest on the undertanding that I shall take what I might forget,” he is subject to the law of forgotten sheaves, since he made a condition against what is written in the Torah, and if anybody makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, his condition is invalid.

Šofkānī drips oil. But did we not state “dripping,” so it must be that it yields much oil. But did we not state: “By its production, if it yields a lot.” So, Šofkānī yields much oil. Nĕṭūfah drips oil. Its production, it yields a lot, viz., it produces a lot of olives. Bês̄ānī, some say, really from Beth She’an; some say, it puts the other trees to shame by producing fourfold, similar to what we have stated: If all sheaves of the field are of one qab, except one which is of four qab and was forgotten. Since it produces more than others, it is considered marked. On condition that it produces every year? Since it produces most years it is considered marked.

Rebbi Yose said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there.

Rebbi Yose said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there.

MISHNAH: An olive tree standing between three rows of two rectangles, when forgotten, is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. An olive tree which yields two seah, when forgotten, is not legally forgotten. When does this apply? Only if he did not start with it, but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten, is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown. Rebbi Meïr says, from the moment that the maḥba is used.

Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with an olive tree that can be shaken. Rebbi Yose said, not only one that can be shaken; since olive trees usually are first checked by shaking, none can be under the law of forgotten sheaves.

MISHNAH: They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time, and about the tithe of the poor its entire year; the Levite can always be trusted. But they can be trusted only about things that people are in the habit of doing.

MISHNAH: He who owns 200 zuz should not take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor. If he had 199, even if a thousand people gave him at the same time, he should take. If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah or for a creditor, he may take. One does not require him to sell his house or the vessels of daily use.

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

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

HALAKHAH: : There, we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so: “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One may put sheaves next to dried-up vines. Rebbi Yose said, that means that one may not plant a dry vine next to dry standing grain. May one sow next to dry vines? Let us hear from the following:“A dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, even cotton is forbidden but does not sanctify.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

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

MISHNAH: One works in Syria what is plucked but not what is standing. One threshes, winnows, treads, and makes sheaves, but one harvests neither grain, nor grapes or olives. Rebbi Aqiba stated a rule: Everything that is permitted in the Land of Israel one does in Syria.

MISHNAH: One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.

Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and ownerless property all have the same rule. Did one not already state everything? Thus you have to understand the Mishnah: [One may] not [give] from produce one third ripe for produce not yet one third ripe, and when he gave heave, it is not heave. For Ḥizqiah it is a point of contention, for Rebbi Joḥanan it is everybody’s opinion.

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

MISHNAH: If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth, the word of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal. He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary. One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property, nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe, nor with dedicated food that was redeemed, for dedicated food cannot redeem dedicated food, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages permit the latter.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes? But we deal with growth of peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything.

MISHNAH: If somebody sows heave in error it should be ploughed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be ploughed under when [sown] intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israel poor and poor Cohanim collect; the Israel poor must sell to the Cohanim poor for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, only Cohanim poor may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israel and poor Cohanim may take; the poor Israel must sell to Cohanim for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what shall he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.

Rebbi Yose asked: If he dedicated sheaves of his [harvest] and they were switched, do even so poor Israel and poor Cohanim collect?

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels him who says “in the evening”, as we have stated: “Rebbi Dosa says, ‘everything the poor will collect between the sheaves shall be abandoned’, it is abandoned. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” But he is not parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Can one abandon anything if it is standing on the ground? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is even parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Is it not Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? In addition, he holds that taking Second Tithe is its redemption. Rebbi Yose said, is that (Lev. 27:19): “It shall be his”? If somebody saw a loaf floating in a river and said, that loaf shall be dedicated, did he say anything? Rebbi Jeremiah said, before you ask all these questions regarding “in the morning”, ask them regarding “in the evening!” He answered him, he who holds “in the evening” does not have all these questions.

To our brothers of Upper and Lower Galilee, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of removal is approaching; take out tithes from the ripening vats of olives. To our brothers of Upper and Lower South country, we inform you that the time of removal is approaching; take out tithes from the sheaves of grain. To our brothers of the diasporas of Babylonia, Media, Greece, and all other diasporas of Israel, may you have much peace. I am informing you that the lambs are young and the young pigeons small, so it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to this year.

MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, as well as abandoned property, First tithe of which its heave had been taken, second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed, the excess of the ‘omer, and grain not yet one-third ripe. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah. The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes, and less than five quarter [qab] of grain. Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal. There is no difference between gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property.

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

Ten commandments does a person fulfill before he eats a piece of bread: Do not plough, do now sow, do not muzzle, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, heave, first tithe, second tithe, and ḥallah. Before Rebbi Isaac went to dinner, he spread out his ten fingers and said, I kept ten commandments.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

MISHNAH: There are 39 categories of work. He who ploughs, who sows, who harvests, who binds into sheaves, who threshes, and who winnows, who selects, who grinds, and who sifts, who makes dough, and who bakes. He who shears wool, who bleaches it, who cards it, who dyes it, who spins it, who prepares the loom, who ties two threads as warp, who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties. Also who sews two stitches, who tears in order to sew two stitches. He who catches a deer, who slaughters it, who skins it, who salts it, who rubs it clean, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer, and who transports from one domain to another; these are the 39 categories of work.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rebbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rebbi Simeon from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds rice, barley, groats, is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs, raisins, מסוסלה, bucellata, is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rebbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rebbi Simeon from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds rice, barley, groats, is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs, raisins, מסוסלה, bucellata, is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rebbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rebbi Simeon from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds rice, barley, groats, is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs, raisins, מסוסלה, bucellata, is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rebbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rebbi Simeon from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds rice, barley, groats, is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs, raisins, מסוסלה, bucellata, is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing.

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

MISHNAH: Six things used the people of Jericho to do; on three of them they interfered, about three they did not interfere. The following are where they did not interfere: They grafted date palms during the entire day, and they bundled the šemaˋ and they cut grain and tied it into sheaves before the ˋomer; they did not interfere. The following are where they did interfere: They permitted sycamore figs of dedicated trees, and they ate wind-fall on the Sabbath, and they gave peah from vegetables; here they did interfere.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut, and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves. Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut, and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves. Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. The earlier generations ploughed, and sowed, and weeded, and trimmed, and hoed, cut, made sheaves, threshed, winnowed, milled, sifted, made dough, kneaded, and baked. But we do not even have a mouth to eat. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, does the Mishnah contradict Rebbi Dosa? For “Rebbi Dosa said, in the morning a person has to say, everything which the poor will collect today between the sheaves is ownerless property. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, because we are not responsible for cheaters.” There you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, but here you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is abandonment. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he declares ownerless by his own will, here he declares ownerless against his own will. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, this is correct. You have to know that this is so since already his replacement is in his hand.

“For demanding will demand, these are purification and reparation offerings. The Eternal, your God, this is dedication for the upkeep of the Temple. From with you, this is collecting single stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Or there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.” For otherwise what would we say? Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say, maybe the sacrifice will be found disqualified; therefore it was necessary to say, (do not tarry to fulfill it, and not its substitute) [there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.] The pronouncement of your lips you shall guard and execute. “You shall guard and execute, to alert the court that they should force you.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Avuna: From here the pledge. As you vowed to the Eternal, your God, a voluntary gift. Is there a vow which is called voluntary gift? But to make him liable for each single vow and every single voluntary gift. “What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering. What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.” Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is”? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Siracides: What is beyond you do not have to know, what is deeper than the abyss do not investigate. Ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things. Rav said, may lying lips be אלם: may they become dumb, be rubbed out, silenced. May they become dumb, as you are saying, the Eternal said to him, Who formed a mouth etc. May they be rubbed out, as you are saying, here we were tying sheaves. May they be silenced, as it is understood. Which talk boasting about a just one, who talk about the Universal Just One in matters which He hid from His creatures. With haughtiness and contempt, that is he who is haughty to say, I am investigating the Creation. He feels like haughty but only is insulting.

“If he has nothing to eat he harvests, and forms sheaves, and threshes, on condition that he not thresh with cattle.” That if he supplies for a single person. But supplies for the public he even threshes with cattle.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr says that as soon as a person abandons anything from his property, it is no longer in his possession. Rebbi Yose says, nothing may leave the hands of its owners except if it is taken up by another person. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, both say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The words of Rebbi Yose [deal with the case] that a person gave a gift to ten people and this one was one of them. If somebody abandoned his field, some Tannaïm say, he can retract, but some Tannaïm say, he cannot retract. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The one who says that he can retract follows Rebbi Yose. But the one who says that he cannot retract follows Rebbi Meïr. Does this mean that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes? What did he say? Abandoned property, not gift! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is subject to tithes. There, they say that abandoned property in the sense of Rebbi Yose is not subject to tithes, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “The Levite shall come,” etc. You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

MISHNAH: ‘A qônām that I shall not have benefit from people’ he cannot dissolve, and she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. ‘A qônām that priests and Levites can have no benefit from me’; they may take forcibly. ‘These priests and these Levites can have no benefit from me;’ others may take.

HALAKHAH: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not have benefit from people,’ etc. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: “And she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah.”. It was stated: “And the tithe of the poor.” The tithe of the poor is not listed here. The tithe of the poor is given as acquisition; these by abandoning.

From here, “if his hair became heavy”: Rebbi. For Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: The words of Rebbi: A nazir in perpetuity shaves once in twelve months. The words of the Sages: A nazir in perpetuity sometimes shaves every thirty days, sometimes once in twelve months. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Assi: It says so: “I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea. He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days,” but once in twelve months. “Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they differ if it was not made explicit. Where do we hold? If he says, “the fullness of my hair”, everybody agrees that he shaves once every thirty days. If he says, “the number of the hairs on my head,” everybody agrees that he shaves after twelve months. But we must hold that he says “like hair”. Rebbi says, “the fullness of my hair”. But the rabbis say, he means “the number of the hairs on my head.” And here, why? Why did the man not make the vow? He only encourages himself to avoid prohibitions. In addition, from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah added: If he said, like that which is collected in the fig harvest, or like sheaves in a Sabbatical year, or like stars in the sky, he is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days.” Could you say that Rebbi Jehudah follows the rabbis? He holds with Rebbi, as Rebbi Jehudah added: “Absalom was a nazir in perpetuity and shaved every twelve months.” What is the reason? Because of nezirut. But that would mean for the rabbis that he shaved every thirty days; that is what we have stated: “I am a nazir the house full, or a chest full. One checks him out.” It was stated on that: He shaves every thirty days. But here he said, he shaved every twelve months.

MISHNAH: The following was said for communal peace: A Cohen reads first, after him a Levite, after him an Israel, for communal peace. One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace. A cistern which is close to a water canal is filled first, for communal peace. Finds of a deaf-mute, or an insane person, or a minor fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. Traps for wild animals, birds, or fish fall under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. If one knocks off [olives] from high up in the olive tree, it falls under the category of robbery, for communal peace; Rebbi Yose says, complete robbery. One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.

“One does not hinder poor Gentiles [from taking] gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or peah, for communal peace.” It was stated: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, one appoints overseers of charity from Gentiles and Jews; one provides for the Gentile and Jewish poor, visits Gentile and Jewish sick, buries Gentile and Jewish dead, and consoles Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one washes Gentile and Jewish clothes for the sake of peaceful coexistence.”

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields were involved, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with the intent of taking possession of the one in Galilee, or the one in Galilee with the intent of taking possession of the one in Judea, he took possession. But in [the case of] property of a proselyte he did not acquire even the boundary strip between them. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting from the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North with the intent of also acquiring that in the South, or in the South with the intent of acquiring also that in the North, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he did not acquire unless he also intended to acquire the middle part. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda: If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his property, if one takes possession of the ground he is obligated for everything. If he took possession of standing grain, he is obligated for fallen stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah but freed from tithes. Does not the air separate between stalks? There, we have stated: “If he tore off anything connected to the ground, he took possession.” Samuel said, he took possession only of that leaf. But did we not state: “If it was connected to the ground and he tore off anything, he took possession”? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it: Samuel will agree, for proselyte’s property.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

MISHNAH: For a dog or a kid goat which jumped from a roof and broke vessels one pays full damages because they are notorious. If a dog stole a hot pitta and went to a stack of sheaves; while it was eating the hot pitta it ignited the stack. For the pitta [its owner] pays full damages, for the stack he pays half damages.

“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if he lit every single ear of grain. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another. Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a kid goat was bound to it and a slave was close by and was burned, he is obligated. If the slave was bound and the kid goat close by, he is free.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then for the first ear he is guilty of a capital crime; for the remainder he should be liable for repayment. Rebbi Yose said, you also understand that from: “If his cattle set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is obligated. But if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is free.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then should he not become obligated since for the remainder he should be liable for repayment. A person did put out a hot water bottle outside. A donkey passed by and broke it. The case came before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai, who said to him: He does not owe you anything. Not only that but if [the donkey] suffered damage, [you] would be obligated for its damages.

“A dog stole a hot pitta.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if he lit every single ear of grain. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another. Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a kid goat was bound to it and a slave was close by and was burned, he is obligated. If the slave was bound and the kid goat close by, he is free.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then for the first ear he is guilty of a capital crime; for the remainder he should be liable for repayment. Rebbi Yose said, you also understand that from: “If his cattle set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is obligated. But if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is free.” But if you say that he is not like a person who shoots an arrow from one place to another, then should he not become obligated since for the remainder he should be liable for repayment. A person did put out a hot water bottle outside. A donkey passed by and broke it. The case came before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevelai, who said to him: He does not owe you anything. Not only that but if [the donkey] suffered damage, [you] would be obligated for its damages.

MISHNAH: A person may be liable for the action of his bull but not liable for his own action, not liable for the action of his bull but liable for his own action: If his bull puts to shame, he is not liable; but if he put to shame, he is liable. If his bull blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is not liable; but if he himself blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is liable. If his bull injured his father or his mother, he is liable; but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is not liable. If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable since he will be tried for a capital crime.

MISHNAH: A person may be liable for the action of his bull but not liable for his own action, not liable for the action of his bull but liable for his own action: If his bull puts to shame, he is not liable; but if he put to shame, he is liable. If his bull blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is not liable; but if he himself blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is liable. If his bull injured his father or his mother, he is liable; but if he himself injured his father or his mother, he is not liable. If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable since he will be tried for a capital crime.