spelt

Now therefore in this (passage) RAShITh (spelt with the A) is not found as regards Jerusalem; for were (the letter A) herein, it would (denote that it would) remain for ever.

They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.

Wheat and zunin do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Barley and oats, spelt and rye, or beans and sapir (a type of bean), or purkdan and tofah (two similar types of beans), or white beans and kidney beans, do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

One who buries turnips or radishes beneath a vine, if some of their leaves are uncovered, he need not have fear [of having transgressed] kilayim, or the sabbatical year, or tithes and they may also be pulled up on Shabbat. One who plants a [grain of] wheat and [a grain of] barley at one time, behold this is kilayim. Rabbi Judah says: it is not kilayim unless there are two grains of wheat and two grains of barley, or one grain of wheat and two grains of barley, or a grain of wheat, a grain of barley and a grain of spelt.

Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity]. And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer. If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.

What counts as a species with its same species? Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt; Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor. All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]? Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor. Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”

“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,” and he ate [all three], he is liable for each one.

“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread,” and he ate [all three], he is liable for each one.

“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that there are of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know not that there are of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”, they are liable for each one. “I adjure you that you bear testimony for me that there is of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know no testimony for you that there is of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”, they are liable for each one.

“I adjure you that you come and bear testimony for me that there are of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know not that there are of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, and a lost object”, they are liable for each one. “I adjure you that you bear testimony for me that there is of mine in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”; [And they respond]: “We swear we know no testimony for you”, they are liable only once. “We swear we know no testimony for you that there is of yours in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”, they are liable for each one.

If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” “Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. “Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one.

If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” “Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. “Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one.

If five claimed from him, and said to him: “Give us the deposit that we have in your possession,” [and he replied:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession,” he is liable only once. [If he said:] “I swear that you have nothing in my possession, nor you, nor you,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ at the end.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Only if he says, ‘I swear’ to each one.” “Give me the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object that I have in your possession,” [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession a deposit, a loan, a theft, and a lost object,” he is liable for each one. “Give me the wheat, barley, and spelt that I have in your possession”, [and he replied], “I swear that you do not have these in my possession,” he is liable only once. “I swear that you do not have in my possession wheat, barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir said: “Even if he said, ‘... A grain of wheat, barley and spelt,’ he is liable for each one.

Wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye are subject to hallah. And they are reckoned together. They are forbidden [to be eaten] as new grain before the omer. And they may not be harvested before Pesah. If they had taken root before the omer, the omer permits them; And if not, they are forbidden until the next year's omer.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

It has been stated: “One recites the benediction on the better kind of flour. Rolls and a full home baked loaf, one recites over a roll. A broken roll and a full home baked loaf, one recites on the full home baked loaf. Wheat bread and barley bread, one recites on wheat bread. A broken loaf of wheat bread and a full loaf of barley bread, one recites on the broken wheat bread. Barley bread and spelt bread, one recites on barley bread. But is not spelt bread better? But this is from one of the Seven Kinds, that one is not of the Seven Kinds.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This is from Rebbi Yehudah, since Rebbi Yehudah said (Mishnah 4), “if there is among them a fruit of the Seven Kinds, on it he recites the benediction.” Impure bread and pure bread, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, he recites on the pure one. Impure white bread and pure coarse bread, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He may recite on the one that he prefers.

It has been stated: “One recites the benediction on the better kind of flour. Rolls and a full home baked loaf, one recites over a roll. A broken roll and a full home baked loaf, one recites on the full home baked loaf. Wheat bread and barley bread, one recites on wheat bread. A broken loaf of wheat bread and a full loaf of barley bread, one recites on the broken wheat bread. Barley bread and spelt bread, one recites on barley bread. But is not spelt bread better? But this is from one of the Seven Kinds, that one is not of the Seven Kinds.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This is from Rebbi Yehudah, since Rebbi Yehudah said (Mishnah 4), “if there is among them a fruit of the Seven Kinds, on it he recites the benediction.” Impure bread and pure bread, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, he recites on the pure one. Impure white bread and pure coarse bread, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He may recite on the one that he prefers.

MISHNAH: One may not give to the poor from the threshing floor less than half a qab of wheat or a qab of barley; Rebbi Meïr says, half a qab. One and a half qab of spelt, a qab of dried figs or a mina of fig cake; Rebbi Aqiba says, half. Half a log of wine; Rebbi Aqiba says, a quarter. A quarter of a log of olive oil; Rebbi Aqiba says, an eighth. About all other produce, Abba Shaul says enough so he may sell it and buy food for two meals from the proceeds.

MISHNAH: Wheat and zěwānîn are not kilaim one with the other. Barley and fox tail, spelt and oats, beans and Indian peas and grass peas and chick peas and fava beans and green beans are not kilaim one with the other.

MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath. If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats. These are subject to ḥallah and combine with one another. They are forbidden as new grain before Passover and may not be cut before the ‘omer. If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.” I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,” this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse (Is. 28:25): “He puts wheat, śorāh, barley; nismān and spelt are its limit.” “He puts wheat”, that is wheat. “Śorāh” is foxtail and why is it called śorāh? Because it is made in a line. “Barley”, that is barley. “Nismān” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit”, bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition? Rebbi Simon said, since it is written (Is. 28:26): “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him,” it is as if it were a word of the Torah.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse (Is. 28:25): “He puts wheat, śorāh, barley; nismān and spelt are its limit.” “He puts wheat”, that is wheat. “Śorāh” is foxtail and why is it called śorāh? Because it is made in a line. “Barley”, that is barley. “Nismān” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit”, bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition? Rebbi Simon said, since it is written (Is. 28:26): “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him,” it is as if it were a word of the Torah.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse (Is. 28:25): “He puts wheat, śorāh, barley; nismān and spelt are its limit.” “He puts wheat”, that is wheat. “Śorāh” is foxtail and why is it called śorāh? Because it is made in a line. “Barley”, that is barley. “Nismān” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit”, bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition? Rebbi Simon said, since it is written (Is. 28:26): “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him,” it is as if it were a word of the Torah.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

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.

But for the rabbis they are three kinds! Oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail are a kind of barley. The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Did we ever state: Five species? No, five kinds. Two times two kinds are one species.

There, we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites, here if it was mixed. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together.

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other.

Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other.

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free. And why did we state: “Rabban Gamliel obligates him”? This comes to tell you the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he obligates people. Rebbi Abbahu [supported] that of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is obligated. Rav followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went with another to court before Rav. He started claiming from him barley, wheat and spelt. Rav told him, charge him with anything you have to charge, and in the end he will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free, did we not state “if he sued him for vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? If he is obligated for vessels about vessels, not so much more vessels for real estate? What does he do with it? He explains it, to transfer an oath to him. But did we not state: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits [that he owes him] vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for oil and he admitted vessels, everybody agrees that what he admitted does not refer to the claim, for Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna said in the name of Rav: The Mishnah deals with the case that he sued for vessels full of oil; the ones are full, the others empty. One understands vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun formulates it as oil bucket. Can one not ask him in the end? If he lost his speech.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody makes a vow to forbid himself anything made in a pot,” etc. What is made in its heat? For example split spelt, porridge, barley gruel, farina, rice, groats and mashed cereal.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ for every item.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, [Rebbi Simeon implies] if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the baraita supports the colleagues: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” Because she said “to be like her, in her state;” therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state,” the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where there was no original nezirut, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? When Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest, if he attaches: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. [Rebbi] Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything? How is this? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement. How is this? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether] he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits produce with another person, the latter returns it deducting losses, for wheat and rice 9/2 qab per kor, for barley and millet nine qab per kor, for spelt and linseed three se‘ah per kor; everything proportional to quantity and time elapsed. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, do the rats care, do they not eat from much as from little? But he only deducts what corresponds to one kor. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was a large quantity, he does not deduct because of the surplus. He deducts one sixth of wine; Rebbi Jehudah says a fifth. He deducts three log of oil per hundred, a log and a half lees, a log and a half absorption. If it was refined oil, he does not deduct lees; if the vessels were old, he does not deduct absorption. Rebbi Jehudah says, also if somebody sells refined oil during the entire year, [the buyer] accepts a log and a half lees per hundred.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. An oath that I shall eat neither wheat bread, nor barley bread, nor spelt bread; when he ate wheat bred, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable for each single one. An oath that I shall not drink; if he drank many kinds he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall drink neither wine, nor oil, not date syrup, if he drank he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. An oath that I shall eat neither wheat bread, nor barley bread, nor spelt bread; when he ate wheat bred, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable for each single one. An oath that I shall not drink; if he drank many kinds he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall drink neither wine, nor oil, not date syrup, if he drank he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. An oath that I shall eat neither wheat bread, nor barley bread, nor spelt bread; when he ate wheat bred, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable for each single one. An oath that I shall not drink; if he drank many kinds he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall drink neither wine, nor oil, not date syrup, if he drank he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit, and a loan, and robbery, and a lost object.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit, and a common venture, and robbery, and a lost object;” they are liable for each single one. “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt;” they are liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit, and a loan, and robbery, and a lost object.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit, and a common venture, and robbery, and a lost object;” they are liable for each single one. “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt;” they are liable for each single one.

Rebbi Yudan from Cappadocia asked: What about “an oath that neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt I am holding for you”? Is it as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once. “I am not holding for you wheat, or barley, or spelt, an oath,” is this as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once. Is it so if this were a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall not eat; I shall not eat, an oath”? In the rabbis’ opinion he brings a sacrifice for each one. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion does he bring one for the entirety? Even Rebbi Eleazar will agree that he is only emphasizing the prohibitions. It only would be problematic if it were about the past. “An oath that I did not eat; I did not eat, an oath.” In the rabbis’ opinion he brings two sacrifices (for each one). In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one (for each).

Rebbi Yudan from Cappadocia asked: What about “an oath that neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt I am holding for you”? Is it as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once. “I am not holding for you wheat, or barley, or spelt, an oath,” is this as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once. Is it so if this were a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall not eat; I shall not eat, an oath”? In the rabbis’ opinion he brings a sacrifice for each one. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion does he bring one for the entirety? Even Rebbi Eleazar will agree that he is only emphasizing the prohibitions. It only would be problematic if it were about the past. “An oath that I did not eat; I did not eat, an oath.” In the rabbis’ opinion he brings two sacrifices (for each one). In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one (for each).

Rebbi Yose asked: “An oath, an oath that I am not holding for you,” what? Rebbi Yose said, let us hear from the following: “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it’. Then he ate it. He is liable only once.” Because he mentioned “this”. Therefore, had he not mentioned “this” we would be liable for each one. Is it the same for a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat, and wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread.” Since he is not liable for carcass meat he is not liable for the remainder.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

The question was asked : Is the word for dying coals spelt 'omemot or 'omemot?

Rab Nahman b. Rab Hisda expounded : What means that which is written, "Then the Lord God formed man" (Gen. ii. 7), the word wayyiser "and He formed" being spelt with two letters yod? The Holy One, blessed be He, created two impulses, one good and the other evil.

It is quite right according to him who says that [Eve was created from] a face ; that is what is written wayyiser "And He formed," spelt with a double yod. But according to him who said that it was from a tail, what means wayyiser?