somebody

MISHNAH: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him. Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word.

MISHNAH: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him. Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, only to his sons. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “only to his sons?” If he has sons, one should return it to his sons. If he has no sons, one should return it to his daughters. That you should not say, since the inheritance of the convert is not settled in the Torah, he should return it to the children. Similarly, if somebody died who was the last of his family and he has no heir except his mother one does not have to repay, but if the debtor repaid the Sages are pleased with him.

The robber who repents and wants to return what he robbed, if somebody accepts it from him, the Sages are displeased with him.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody trades in promises, there you say the Sages are displeased with him. But sometimes you say only that one gives him up to “Him who made pay”.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

“ ‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave. Let us hear from the following: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his ṭevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rebbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner. This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person.

“ ‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave. Let us hear from the following: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his ṭevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rebbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner. This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person.

“If somebody brought many kinds in a box, cabbage on top and cabbage on the bottom but something else in between, he may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.” That means, if there is no empty space. But if there is empty space he may give heave or tithe from one for the other. “The entire house of the wine press is one.” The entire threshing house is one. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, only if the main threshing place is in the middle. So far this is for wheat; [it is] the same even for stubbles, even for straw.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If somebody gave heave from impure for pure produce, whether it was in error or intentionally, what he did is done.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Assi: There, it is when he thought that it was pure when he had known that it was impure, but he was of the opinion that one may give heave from impure for pure produce? He said to him, that is so, Rebbi holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Yose it would not make any difference.

It was stated: “A woman should not fill a pot with ‘assasiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rebbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct, did not Rebbi Yose say, “ He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the other way around. In the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out, on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional because the profit of the Sabbath [is forbidden] to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is counted. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; can it be explained for counting? But you have to say because of suspicion; they fined for the unintentional because of the intentional.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine for vinegar but not from vinegar for wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one for the other.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it seems that Rebbi would agree as to biblical law. What is Rebbi’s reason? If you say so, that one may give heave of wine for vinegar, he will think that one is permitted to give vinegar for wine.

MISHNAH: If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering, that I shall not enter this house and he says that one, that I shall have no enjoyment from this one and he says from that one, he did not say anything unless his statement and his intention be equal.

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

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

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

MISHNAH: The rate of heave: A generous person one in forty, the House of Shammay say, one in thirty. Average, one in fifty, and stingy, one in sixty. If somebody gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more. When he added, [the addition] is subject to tithes. If it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he has to add in his usual way, by measure, weight, or count. Rebbi Jehudah says, even from what is not earmarked.

MISHNAH: If somebody said to his agent: go and give heave, he gives heave following the intentions of the owner. If [the agent] does not know the intentions of the owner, he gives average heave, one in fifty. If he diminished by ten or added ten, his heave is heave, but if he intended to exceed [the owner’s intention] by even one, his heave is not heave. If somebody increases heave, Rebbi Eliezer says, up to one tenth like the heave of the tithe. The excess he should make heave of the tithe but not for another place. Rebbi Ismael says, half profane and half heave. Rebbi Ṭarphon and Rebbi Aqiba say more, but he must retain some profane produce.

MISHNAH: If somebody said to his agent: go and give heave, he gives heave following the intentions of the owner. If [the agent] does not know the intentions of the owner, he gives average heave, one in fifty. If he diminished by ten or added ten, his heave is heave, but if he intended to exceed [the owner’s intention] by even one, his heave is not heave. If somebody increases heave, Rebbi Eliezer says, up to one tenth like the heave of the tithe. The excess he should make heave of the tithe but not for another place. Rebbi Ismael says, half profane and half heave. Rebbi Ṭarphon and Rebbi Aqiba say more, but he must retain some profane produce.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another. How is this? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient. And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers.

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave in error,” etc. It is written (Lev. 22:14): “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth.” That it and its fifth make five.

Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth. Rebbi Zeїra said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally.

Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth. Rebbi Zeїra said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally.

If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally. Would Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell, he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in case he would complete it in the future.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth. His payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive this, he may forgive.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. There, we have stated: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat,” but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.

[It happened that] the daughter of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya punched holes into figs so that the fellows should not eat them but (his) [her] father Rebbi Ḥiyya ate from them. Is that not forbidden? He knew of the matter. Is it not forbidden anyhow, have we not stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden for I say, they ate from the place of a pecking hole.” She had been watching.

It was stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden [to eat from them] for I say, they might have eaten from the place of a pecking hole.” Rebbi Abba said, that means that a snake spits out repeatedly. Rebbi Jonah said, who considers for us commandments for peckings? But for torn [animals], Rebbi Abba said in the name of the rabbis from there, “if it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order because intestines are presumed to be in order.” Should one not question whether they were pierced? Intestines are presumed to be in order. But here, you say so? It is worse if there is danger to life; for peckings they went all the way with Rabban Gamliel.

MISHNAH: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose. Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed [in the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action]. About both of these cases, Rebbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to [intentionally] make it impure. If somebody was on the road with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I shall defile all of them, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rebbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her, otherwise we shall defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over.

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 Abun said: Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai in order to examine him: If somebody muzzled outside and then brought [the animal] inside? He said to him (Lev. 10:9): “When you come to the tent of meeting;” from when you come to the tent of meeting. Rebbi Ezra said, (Deut. 25:4) “Do not muzzle an ox at his threshing;” do not thresh using a muzzled ox.

MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rebbi Meїr forbids and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.

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

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon, Rebbi Birai, Rebbi Levi bar Plautus, an elder in the name of Rebbi: 61 are forbidden, 62 are permitted. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada testified before us: 60. He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I shall declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I [said] what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty. He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi; he asked: Are there 50?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If somebody would say to you there are eight drinks, tell him, are not dew and water the same? But they counted them as two! If we had another, would they not have counted it? If another did exist, would they not have counted it?

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.

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 Zeїra, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody sowed an ownerless field, the crop is subject to tithes. Rebbi Jonah offers the language: Because he acquired the ownerless field and its growth.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: If somebody buys a vegetable field in Syria, if this was before the start of the season of tithes, he is obligated. But if it was after the start of the season of tithes, he is free. And here, you say so? Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of a field of green melons or pumpkins. Rebbi Zeïra said, even if you hold this about a general field of vegetables, there still is a limit, only after if grew three twisted leaves.

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun [said it] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah stays with his opinion, the rabbis stay with their opinion, as we have stated: “Olives which somebody crushed with impure hands are not prepared, to let them soak up salt they are prepared, to know whether they contain sap they are not prepared; Rebbi Jehudah says they are prepared.” The rabbis say, he checks their sap. Rebbi Jehudah says, he checks their body. Here, the rabbis say he polishes with their sap, Rebbi Jehudah says, he polishes with what he has.

MISHNAH: If somebody passed by the market place and said: “take some figs,” one may eat without tithing. Therefore, if they brought to their houses, they must put in order as certain produce. “Take some figs and bring them home,” one should not eat them as a snack. Therefore, if they brought to their houses, they have to put in order only as demay. If they were sitting in a gate or in a store and he said, take some figs, they may eat and are free, but the owners of the gate or the store are obligated. Rebbi Jehudah frees them unless they turn their faces away or change their places.

Our Mishnah [deals with] the case that most people bring to their houses but in case most people bring directly to market one has to put in order only as demay. If we were dealing with the case that most people bring to their houses, is that not what we have stated: “ ‘Take some figs and bring them home,’ one should not eat them as a snack?” Since he said, “take some figs and bring them home,” it is as if he said, “take, I am taking care of the tithes for you.” But if most people bring directly to market he is not trusted if he says to somebody, I did tithe, nor is he trusted if he says to him, I am bringing mine to my house.

“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats as usual and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket,’ he should not eat before tithing. When has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he can eat and does not have to tithe, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he has to put it in order as certainly untithed since Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked. Rebbi said, I prefer my words to those of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. It is preferable that they should tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar.” Rebbi Zeїra said, from both their opinions [it follows that] even a Fellow who sends to another Fellow must tithe. They ventured to say, he who said that Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked, when somebody is a Fellow he has to tithe. And he who said, it is better to tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar, if he is a Fellow he has to tithe. Rebbi Jonah asked: Here you declare him to be a Fellow, there you declare him to be a vulgar. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases, he is a vulgar. But because of the rare one who puts in order he is called a Fellow.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abin: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. There, we have stated: “If he put it in a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv, lower than ten hand-breadths it is an eruv.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, make an eruv for me! But here, he says I shall tithe for you. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall make an eruv for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey. Rebbi Meїr says, until he reaches the place where he stays for the Sabbath. Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat until they come to the place where they will stay for the night. Rebbi Jehudah says, the first house is his house.

HALAKHAH: When fruits were collected not for use on the Sabbath and the Sabbath started, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Sabbath does not make it ṭevel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, did we not state: “If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey?” We stated about this: Even if he stayed overnight, even if he stayed over the Sabbath! He said to him, when he wants to stay for the Sabbath. You should know that this is so since we have stated about this: “Even if he stayed for the Sabbath on Monday.” Can you have the Sabbath on a Monday? It must be that he wants to stay for the Sabbath; here also if he wants to stay for the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: Fruits from which he gave heave before they were completely processed, Rebbi Eliezer prohibits to eat snacks from them but the Sages permit it except for harvesting-baskets of figs. Rebbi Simeon permits from a harvesting-basket of figs from which heave was taken but the Sages forbid. If somebody says to another person, here take this as and give me five figs for it, he should not eat before he tithed, the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he eats them singly he is free, if he takes them together he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah said, there is a story that a rose garden was in Jerusalem whose figs were sold three or four for an as and nobody ever gave heave and tithes for them.

“ If somebody buys dates to press them, dried figs to pound them, he may not eat a snack from them and must tithe as demay, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, he may eat a snack from them and must give tithes as certain, the words of Rebbi Yose.” Rebbi Hilai, Rebbi Lazar in the name of Hilfai; Rebbi Jonah said, it was found on the writing tablet of Hilfai: He may eat a snack from them and gives tithes as certain. This is difficult! If he may eat a snack from them, he should give certain tithes. If he tithes as demay, he should be forbidden to eat them as a snack! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: He may eat them as snack because their processing is not finished; he gives certain tithes since he [the seller] knows that his house induces ṭevel, he will separate heave from the start.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

It is written (Deut. 23:25): “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says: “Do not put into your own vessel,” but you may put into somebody else’s vessel. Who is this? This is the laborer. “You may eat grapes.” Do we not know that in a vineyard there is nothing to eat but grapes? Why does the verse say, you may eat grapes? From here [it follows] that if he works fig trees he cannot eat grapes, vines he cannot eat figs. “All your soul’s desire,” all that your inclination may be. “All your soul’s desire,” anything that is free from tithes. What you eat without obligation also the laborer may eat without obligation. “All your soul’s desire,” from here that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages. From here did Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma deduce that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages, but the Sages permit it. From where that his wages are called his soul? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it says here “his soul” and it says at another place “his soul” as it is written (Deut. 24:15): “For that he carries his soul.” Just as “his soul” there means his wages, so here “his soul” means his wages. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not eat and vomit. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not peel figs or suck out grapes.

MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces, his children and companions may eat and they are free; the same holds for laborers who work for him as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat. If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free. But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh. If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives,” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces, his children and companions may eat and they are free; the same holds for laborers who work for him as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat. If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free. But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh. If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives,” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces, his children and companions may eat and they are free; the same holds for laborers who work for him as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat. If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free. But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh. If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives,” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard, then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.

It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard, then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.

It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard, then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: What is the reason we stated here that “he is free”? They said to him, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free. He said to them, is our Mishnah needed for that, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free? It must be because of abandoned property since if he brings it to his house he still is free. As it is stated: “If somebody found a harvesting basket covered with leaves, that is forbidden because of robbery and is subject to tithes.” It is forbidden because of robbery since it is something with distinguishing marks. It is subject to tithes since the owners still have it in mind. How far, that he could give heave from abandoned property? He cannot give heave from abandoned property! “He turns it into money’s worth and eats.”

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

If he pickled or cooked without the owners’ knowledge, there is a difference between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since these differ: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Yudan said, there it is impossible for him not to make a heap, here it is possible for him not to pickle.

If he pickled or cooked without the owners’ knowledge, there is a difference between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since these differ: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Yudan said, there it is impossible for him not to make a heap, here it is possible for him not to pickle.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah speaks of a harvesting basket of figs. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, even a branch. Rebbi Eleazar ben Antigonos in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yannai: Explain it for a fig tree reserved for the Sabbath. Example: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Ammi were sitting together when somebody passed by with a harvesting basket of figs. He said to him, [we want] to buy! He answered, the Sabbath basket is not for sale.

MISHNAH: If somebody peels barley, he may peel one by one and eat but if he peeled and collected in his hand he is obligated. If somebody rolls wheat grains he may blow away the chaff from his hand and eat but if he blew away and stored in the fold of his toga, he is obligated. If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free. If it was sown as vegetable, seeds and greenery are obligated. Rebbi Eliezer said, dill is tithed seeds, vegetable, and perianths. But the Sages say, only cress and wild rocket are tithed seeds and vegetable.

MISHNAH: If somebody peels barley, he may peel one by one and eat but if he peeled and collected in his hand he is obligated. If somebody rolls wheat grains he may blow away the chaff from his hand and eat but if he blew away and stored in the fold of his toga, he is obligated. If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free. If it was sown as vegetable, seeds and greenery are obligated. Rebbi Eliezer said, dill is tithed seeds, vegetable, and perianths. But the Sages say, only cress and wild rocket are tithed seeds and vegetable.

MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free. If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated. Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor. Onions which developed roots in storage became pure and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field.

MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free. If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated. Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor. Onions which developed roots in storage became pure and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field.

MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free. If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated. Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor. Onions which developed roots in storage became pure and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lifts out plants from his own property”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s. As we have stated there, “He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is the opinion of everybody. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the matter of young plants. What is the difference between wheat and young plants? For wheat, it was the end of processing; for plants it is not the end of processing. Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages in the matter of turnips and radishes because they spoil. Does wheat not also spoil? Wheat admits another threshing floor, these have no other threshing floor.

“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.

“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.

MISHNAH: A person should not sell his produce after it reached the period of tithing to anybody not trustworthy in matters of tithe, or in the Sabbatical year to anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical. If some were ripened early he takes the early ripe fruit and sells the remainder. A person should not sell his chaff or his oil cakes or his grape husks to somebody not trustworthy in matters of tithe if the latter wants to extract fluids from it. If he extracted, he is obligated for tithes but free from heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff. If somebody bought a vegetable field in Syria before it reached the time of tithes he is obligated, after it reached the time of tithes he is free and he can harvest continuously. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may even hire workers and harvest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, where has this been said? When he bought the field. But if he did not buy the field he is free even after it reached the time of tithes. Rebbi said, all according to computation.

MISHNAH: A person should not sell his produce after it reached the period of tithing to anybody not trustworthy in matters of tithe, or in the Sabbatical year to anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical. If some were ripened early he takes the early ripe fruit and sells the remainder. A person should not sell his chaff or his oil cakes or his grape husks to somebody not trustworthy in matters of tithe if the latter wants to extract fluids from it. If he extracted, he is obligated for tithes but free from heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff. If somebody bought a vegetable field in Syria before it reached the time of tithes he is obligated, after it reached the time of tithes he is free and he can harvest continuously. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may even hire workers and harvest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, where has this been said? When he bought the field. But if he did not buy the field he is free even after it reached the time of tithes. Rebbi said, all according to computation.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, abandonment, dedication, and Syria are in dispute between Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages about budding and growing roots. If somebody sowed a dry spot, it grew one-third ripe, and he made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is obligated; according to the Sages any later growth is free. If he sowed in a house, removed the roof, and then made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is free; according to the Sages any later growth is obligated.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If somebody said to a woman, draw this animal tithe to you from me and be preliminarily married to me by it after slaughtering. Since it is in his hand to slaughter, is she immediately preliminarily married or only after slaughtering?

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. There, we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

MISHNAH: If somebody buys a domestic animal for a well-being offering or a wild animal for meat of desire, the hide becomes profane even though it may be worth more than the meat. [If he buys] sealed wine jugs at a place where jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane. The shells of walnuts and almonds become profane. Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money. If somebody buys a wild animal for a well-being offering or a domestic animal for meat of desire, the hide does not become profane. [If he buys] open wine jugs or sealed ones at a place where wine usually is sold from the barrel, the pitcher does not become profane. [If he buys] baskets of figs and baskets of grapes sold with the vessel, the price money of the vessel does not become profane.

MISHNAH: If somebody buys a domestic animal for a well-being offering or a wild animal for meat of desire, the hide becomes profane even though it may be worth more than the meat. [If he buys] sealed wine jugs at a place where jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane. The shells of walnuts and almonds become profane. Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money. If somebody buys a wild animal for a well-being offering or a domestic animal for meat of desire, the hide does not become profane. [If he buys] open wine jugs or sealed ones at a place where wine usually is sold from the barrel, the pitcher does not become profane. [If he buys] baskets of figs and baskets of grapes sold with the vessel, the price money of the vessel does not become profane.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the tithe [money] did not acquire. Rebbi Yose said, first we said that if somebody bought a domestic animal for meat of desire, against his will it gets the name of well-being offering but we said nothing since Rebbi Eleazar said, the tithe [money] did not acquire.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An animal of Second Tithe in Jerusalem following Rebbi Meїr is free from the rules of firstlings; following Rebbi Jehudah it is under the rules of firstlings. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If it gave birth to a firstling, must its sacred parts be brought onto the altar? Did not its sacred parts fall under the rules of Second Tithe and you would hide it from being eaten? He said to him, if somebody bought meat as meat of desire, would not [the holiness of] Second Tithe have fallen on its sacred parts, would you not hide it from being eaten? He said to him, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Yose said, we were not saying so but the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively. What is the difference between them? If it gave birth to a firstling and he dedicated it as well-being sacrifice. For him who says, the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively, it is offered. For him who says, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it, and it is not offered.