somebody

MISHNAH: If somebody buys water, or salt, or produce still connected to the ground, or produce that cannot reach Jerusalem, the tithe [money] does not acquire. If somebody bought produce in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring them up and they should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple they should be left to rot. If somebody buys a domestic animal in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring it up and it should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple it should be buried in its hide. One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. One does not bring nests for men with gonorrhea, women with discharges, or women who have given birth from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. This is the principle: If one bought anything except for eating, drinking, and rubbing from Second Tithe money, he has to eat its worth.

MISHNAH: If somebody buys water, or salt, or produce still connected to the ground, or produce that cannot reach Jerusalem, the tithe [money] does not acquire. If somebody bought produce in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring them up and they should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple they should be left to rot. If somebody buys a domestic animal in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring it up and it should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple it should be buried in its hide. One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. One does not bring nests for men with gonorrhea, women with discharges, or women who have given birth from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. This is the principle: If one bought anything except for eating, drinking, and rubbing from Second Tithe money, he has to eat its worth.

MISHNAH: If somebody buys water, or salt, or produce still connected to the ground, or produce that cannot reach Jerusalem, the tithe [money] does not acquire. If somebody bought produce in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring them up and they should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple they should be left to rot. If somebody buys a domestic animal in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring it up and it should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple it should be buried in its hide. One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. One does not bring nests for men with gonorrhea, women with discharges, or women who have given birth from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. This is the principle: If one bought anything except for eating, drinking, and rubbing from Second Tithe money, he has to eat its worth.

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

Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” The colleagues said, he is guilty only on one count. Rebbi Yose said to them, we say after this, “an oath that I shall neither eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” It is as if somebody had two loaves before him when he said: [I swear] an oath that I shall not eat this one, and then he said: [I swear] an oath that I shall not eat that one, would he not be guilty on two counts?

What means “to eat everything commonly eaten”? “One does not oblige anybody to eat mouldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him. What means “to drink everything one commonly drinks”? “One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce, or sour fish sauce, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much [vinegar] as he wants without second thoughts. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.” “One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.” “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.”

What means “to eat everything commonly eaten”? “One does not oblige anybody to eat mouldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him. What means “to drink everything one commonly drinks”? “One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce, or sour fish sauce, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much [vinegar] as he wants without second thoughts. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.” “One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.” “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.”

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

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

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

“If he said, a quartarius of profane is in this barrel, the barrel is profane.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah says so, “Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.”

MISHNAH: If somebody transports Second Tithe produce from a place of high prices to one of low prices or vice versa, he redeems at the level of his place. If he brings produce from the threshing floor to town or from the wine-press to town, the excess value belongs to the Second but the expense is on him. One redeems Second Tithe following the low rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins. One does not redeem Second Tithe en bloc; if the price is known it is redeemed by the information of one person, if the price is not known by the information of three, as e. g., wine getting sour, fruit rotting, or coins rusting.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports Second Tithe produce,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they said only “if somebody transports”; therefore originally it is forbidden. This is about Second Tithe produce, but for produce which is ṭevel for Second Tithe it is originally permitted, following this: Rebbi had produce here and in Batanaia; he fixed the tithes of here there and redeemed them according to the going price there.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports Second Tithe produce,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they said only “if somebody transports”; therefore originally it is forbidden. This is about Second Tithe produce, but for produce which is ṭevel for Second Tithe it is originally permitted, following this: Rebbi had produce here and in Batanaia; he fixed the tithes of here there and redeemed them according to the going price there.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

MISHNAH: One may circumvent about Second Tithe. How is this? A person may say to his neighbor, his adult son or daughter, his Hebrew male or female slave: Take these coins and redeem this tithe for yourself. But he should not say so to his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand. If somebody was standing on the threshing floor and no coins were in his hand, he says to a friend, this produce is given to you as a gift; then he goes on and says to him, it is redeemed by coins in the house.

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower.

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for something that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what rightfully is hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for something that is not his? In addition, from what Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to take it back, he may take it back. Rebbi Yose stood near to Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”? They said, at the moment he said it, it was a just yes.

MISHNAH: All found coins are profane, even gold denars with silver or change. If one found with them a potsherd reading “tithe”, it is tithe. If one finds a vessel inscribed “sacrifice”, Rebbi Jehudah said, if it was pottery it is profane and its contents sacrifice, but if it was metal it is sacrifice and its contents profane. They said to him, people do not put profane in sacrifice [vessels]. If one finds a vessel inscribed ק it means sacrifice, מ tithe, ד demay, ט ṭevel, ת heave since in times of danger one wrote ת for heave. Rebbi Yose says, all these are people’s names. Rebbi Yose said, even if he found an amphora full of produce and inscribed “heave”, these are profane since I say last year it was full of tithe produce but he emptied it. If somebody said to his son, “Second Tithe is in that corner” but he found it in another corner, that is profane. “There is a talent” but he found 200, the remainder is profane. “200” and he found 100, all is tithe.

Somebody was worried about his father’s monies; it appeared to him in a dream that they were so and so much and at place X. This case came before the rabbis who said, dreams do not improve or detract. Rebbi Jonah asked: He is worried and you say so? Rebbi Yose said, is it not reasonable that it does not apply to somebody who is not worried but sees; but here, what the person is he sees. Rebbi Avin said, whoever wants to act, should act following Rebbi Yose.

Somebody was worried about his father’s monies; it appeared to him in a dream that they were so and so much and at place X. This case came before the rabbis who said, dreams do not improve or detract. Rebbi Jonah asked: He is worried and you say so? Rebbi Yose said, is it not reasonable that it does not apply to somebody who is not worried but sees; but here, what the person is he sees. Rebbi Avin said, whoever wants to act, should act following Rebbi Yose.

It was stated: If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is pure; I say a compressed corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

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.

Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of] the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (Num. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times they sent to the rural farmers, speed up your produce before the time of removal, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that any produce which did not reach the time of tithing is exempt from removal. If somebody’s produce was far from him, he has to give it a name. It happened that Rabban Gamliel was on a ship with the elders when Rabban Gamliel said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Joshua and its place is rented to him; another tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Aqiba; he should distribute it to the poor, and its place is rented to him. Rebbi Joshua said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Eleazar ben Azariah and its place is rented to him. They paid the rent to each other.

Rebbi Yose said, who would think that Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi could think that the cereal offering of the ‘omer could come from spelt, foxtail, or oats? If somebody said, black figs are [forbidden] to me, is he not permitted white ones? But “black ones” he said, “white ones” he did not say. And here, “milky white barley” was said, “milky white foxtail” was not said.

Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed: If somebody ground and mixed piggul and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden. If one made five doughs from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said (Lev. 214): “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal.” This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ‘omer comes and permits it. Do we not hold before cutting? In addition, from the following which was stated: “If somebody weeds on the thirteenth and a stalk remains in his hand, he should replant it in a moist spot but not a dry one.” Here you have the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, and part of a day is counted as whole.

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them on Passover, he did his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened [bread], he is subject to being cut off. If one of them is mixed with other kinds one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these. They are subject to ḥallah and tithes.

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.”

What are the rules “in between”? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. From where that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (Num. 15:20) “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,” from ḥallah you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to ḥallah? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift ḥallah”.

HALAKHAH: 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 not ṭevel. 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 none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt 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 will make bread dough for him. 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 said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

HALAKHAH: 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 not ṭevel. 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 none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt 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 will make bread dough for him. 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 said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

HALAKHAH: 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 not ṭevel. 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 none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt 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 will make bread dough for him. 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 said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, as it has no consistency. Rebbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.

MISHNAH: If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single qabim and not make it in impurity. Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim, since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single qabim have no named hallah.If somebody makes his dough single qabim and they are touching one another, they are free from ḥallah unless they are biting. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together

MISHNAH: If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single qabim and not make it in impurity. Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim, since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single qabim have no named hallah.If somebody makes his dough single qabim and they are touching one another, they are free from ḥallah unless they are biting. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together

MISHNAH: If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to ḥallah; the flour, if it is a full measure, is obligated for ḥallah and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed it. He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order. Five quarters of coarse flour are obligated for ḥallah; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned, it is free. The rate of ḥallah is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded. Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for ḥallah from dough from which ḥallah was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to ḥallah; the flour, if it is a full measure, is obligated for ḥallah and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed it. He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order. Five quarters of coarse flour are obligated for ḥallah; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned, it is free. The rate of ḥallah is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded. Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for ḥallah from dough from which ḥallah was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.

But did we not state: “If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24?” Not to make a distinction in doughs of a private person. But did we not state: “And also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48?” When she makes it for herself, she is stingy with her dough; when she makes to sell on the market she is generous with her dough. Rebbi said, the Mishnah speaks about one used to give one in 48, but about one who is used to give one in 24, we should state that “the sinner should not be rewarded”.

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 olives 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 fluids called fluid are 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 Assi: 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 siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah 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 agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah, but the Sages say it is no ḥallah.” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start? Here we deal with the start. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rebbi Aqiba.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends.

“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree.”

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.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

It was stated: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ‘orlah.” From when does one count ‘orlah? From the moment it is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud; but on a willow it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year. And that is what has been said, “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: There is no “grafted” here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with.

Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqola in the name of Ḥizqia: If somebody plants in a flower pot without a hole, it is subject to ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, because the roots break through it. Rebbi Jonah uses the expression: Clay vessels withstand roots. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he planted a gourd in it, since it is as if there were a hole for trees, is it like as if with a hole for vegetables?

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

MISHNAH: If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a sîṭ with ‘orlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.

MISHNAH: If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a sîṭ with ‘orlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into a private person’s and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a private road is in between? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha, when he provined through a gourd or a pipe. If he provined through a gourd or a pipe he should bring and make the declaration! Even according to the rabbis he should bring and make the declaration! Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah had a problem. If somebody sells a path to another person, does he sell him the place where the foot treads or does he sell him down to the abyss? If you say, he sold the place where the foot treads, he brings and makes the declaration. If you say, he sold down to the abyss, he should not bring at all. Because of the doubt he brings but does not make the declaration. For the rabbis it is obvious that he sold down to the abyss. Where do they differ? When he sells a path to another person. But if he sold him a field and reserved a path for himself, everybody agrees that he reserved for himself down to the abyss.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: If somebody sold him a field with its standing crop, may the buyer bring First Fruits? He said to him, why not? That is, when it is moist; even when it is dry? He said to him, even dry, even harvested. Then even wheat grain; do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits?

The following is obvious: If somebody sold the harvest and retained the land for himself, the seller cannot bring since he has no harvest. If he bought it back? Let us hear from the following: “If he gave her dedicated things they are permitted; wines, oils, flour, or anything of a kind admissible near the altar, are prohibited. The latter adds only bundles of vines and rings made of grain stalks.” Where do we hold? If he gave her as whore’s wages, do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits? But we must hold in case the vines were hers, she sold him the fruits, and he gave them back to her as whore’s wages. Because they are whore’s wages. Therefore, if they were not whore’s wages she might bring. That means, if he bought back he may bring.

Should sacrifices be subject to death and extirpation? Can somebody die and die again? As we have stated: “If somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation. At 52, the death of the prophet Samuel. At 60, it is the death written in the Torah. At 70, a death of love. At 80, death of old age. After that, a life of suffering.”

Should sacrifices be subject to death and extirpation? Can somebody die and die again? As we have stated: “If somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation. At 52, the death of the prophet Samuel. At 60, it is the death written in the Torah. At 70, a death of love. At 80, death of old age. After that, a life of suffering.”

From where do you understand that if somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation? It is written (Num. 4:18–19): “Do not extirpate the tribe of the families of (Levi), etc. Do the following for them that they should live and not die.” Organize them that they should not enjoy seeing the holiest of holies. And it is written (Num. 4:20): “They should not come to look, when the holies are wrapped, and die.” And it is written (Num. 8:25): “At age 50, he should retire from the work force.” Rebbi Abin, the son of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Tryphon, understood it from here (Ps. 90:10): “The days of our lives here are 70 years.” Subtract from these 20 years during which the Heavenly Court does neither punish not extirpate, and you will find that one who dies at up to 50 years dies in extirpation.

MISHNAH: The koy in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals. How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal; one does not slaughter it on a holiday but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal; that impurity is one of doubt. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey. How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees since the claimant has to bring proof. How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son, he did not include the koy. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

MISHNAH: The koy in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals. How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal; one does not slaughter it on a holiday but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal; that impurity is one of doubt. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey. How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees since the claimant has to bring proof. How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son, he did not include the koy. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi, as it was stated: If somebody dedicated his wild and domestic animals to the Temple, he did not dedicate the koy. Rebbi said, he dedicated the koy.

“If somebody said, I shall be a nazir if that is a wild animal, he is a nazir. That this is a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is not a wild animal, he is a nazir. That this is not a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is a wild and a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir.”