stalk

And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

And I saw in my dream, and, behold, seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good:

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.

And he awoke, and he slept again and he dreamed a second time, and he saw and behold seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good, and seven thin ears blasted with the east wind sprang, up after them, and the thin ears swallowed up the full ones, and Pharaoh awoke out of his dream.

And that which thou didst see in the second dream of seven full good ears of corn coming up upon one stalk, this is their interpretation, that thou wilt build unto thyself in the latter days seven cities throughout the land of Egypt; and that which thou sawest of the seven blasted ears of corn springing up after them and swallowing them up whilst thou didst behold them with thine eyes, is for a sign that the cities which thou wilt build will all be destroyed in the latter days, in the life-time of the king.

We now turn our attention to some of our own [believers], who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of the body. We ask these persons in what manner they understand that an animal body is to be changed by the grace of the resurrection, and to become a spiritual one; and how that which is sown in weakness will arise in power; how that which is planted in dishonour will arise in glory; and that which was sown in corruption, will be changed to a state of incorruption. Because if they believe the apostle, that a body which arises in glory, and power, and incorruptibility, has already become spiritual, it appears absurd and contrary to his meaning to say that it can again be entangled with the passions of flesh and blood, seeing the apostle manifestly declares that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, nor shall corruption inherit incorruption.” But how do they understand the declaration of the apostle, “We shall all be changed?” This transformation certainly is to be looked for, according to the order which we have taught above; and in it, undoubtedly, it becomes us to hope for something worthy of divine grace; and this we believe will take place in the order in which the apostle describes the sowing in the ground of a “bare grain of corn, or of any other fruit,” to which “God gives a body as it pleases Him,” as soon as the grain of corn is dead. For in the same way also our bodies are to be supposed to fall into the earth like a grain; and (that germ being implanted in them which contains the bodily substance) although the bodies die, and become corrupted, and are scattered abroad, yet by the word of God, that very germ which is always safe in the substance of the body, raises them from the earth, and restores and repairs them, as the power which is in the grain of wheat, after its corruption and death, repairs and restores the grain into a body having stalk and ear. And so also to those who shall deserve to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, that germ of the body’s restoration, which we have before mentioned, by God’s command restores out of the earthly and animal body a spiritual one, capable of inhabiting the heavens; while to each one of those who may be of inferior merit, or of more abject condition, or even the lowest in the scale, and altogether thrust aside, there is yet given, in proportion to the dignity of his life and soul, a glory and dignity of body,—nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire.

But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the churches, and which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already adduced, let us, with regard to the problem (as in an apologetic work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those who are still “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”), state and establish to the best of our ability a few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we, then, nor the Holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a higher condition, “shall those who were long dead arise from the earth and live again;” for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture treating of the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may suffice for the present to quote the language of Paul from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.” Now, observe how in these words he says that there is sown, “not that body that shall be;” but that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each seed its own body), there takes place as it were a resurrection: from the seed that was cast into the ground there arising a stalk, e.g. among such plants as the following, viz. the mustard plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive, or one of the fruit-trees.

Let no one, however, suspect that, in speaking as we do, we belong to those who are indeed called Christians, but who set aside the doctrine of the resurrection as it is taught in Scripture. For these persons cannot, so far as their principles apply, at all establish that the stalk or tree which springs up comes from the grain of wheat, or anything else [which was cast into the ground]; whereas we, who believe that that which is “sown” is not “quickened” unless it die, and that there is sown not that body that shall be (for God gives it a body as it pleases Him, raising it in incorruption after it is sown in corruption; and after it is sown in dishonour, raising it in glory; and after it is sown in weakness, raising it in power; and after it is sown a natural body, raising it a spiritual),—we preserve both the doctrine of the church of Christ and the grandeur of the divine promise, proving also the possibility of its accomplishment not by mere assertion, but by arguments; knowing that although heaven and earth, and the things that are in them, may pass away, yet His words regarding each individual thing, being, as parts of a whole, or species of a genus, the utterances of Him who was God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, shall by no means pass away. For we desire to listen to Him who said: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the grain of wheat which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that as above the grain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from which the body is raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they hold regarding the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert that the body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its original condition, and will again assume that first nature from which it passed into a state of dissolution, establishing these points, as they think, by irresistible arguments. We, however, do not betake ourselves to a most absurd refuge, saying that with God all things are possible; for we know how to understand this word “all” as not referring either to things that are “non-existent” or that are inconceivable. But we maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what is disgraceful, since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God; for if He do anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays it down as a principle, that “God does not desire what is contrary to nature,” we have to make a distinction, and say that if any one asserts that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we maintain that “God does not desire what is contrary to nature,”—either what springs from wickedness or from an irrational principle,—yet, if such things happen according to the word and will of God, we must at once necessarily hold that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore things which are done by God, although they may be, or may appear to some to be incredible, are not contrary to nature. And if we must press the force of words, we would say that, in comparison with what is generally understood as “nature,” there are certain things which are beyond its power, which God could at any time do; as, e.g., in raising man above the level of human nature, and causing him to pass into a better and more divine condition, and preserving him in the same, so long as he who is the object of His care shows by his actions that he desires [the continuance of His help].

Moreover, as we have already said that for God to desire anything unbecoming Himself would be destructive of His existence as Deity, we will add that if man, agreeably to the wickedness of his nature, should desire anything that is abominable, God cannot grant it. And now it is from no spirit of contention that we answer the assertions of Celsus; but it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate them, as assenting to his view that “He is the God, not of inordinate desires, nor of error and disorder, but of a nature just and upright,” because He is the source of all that is good. And that He is able to provide an eternal life for the soul we acknowledge; and that He possesses not only the “power,” but the “will.” In view, therefore, of these considerations, we are not at all distressed by the assertion of Heraclitus, adopted by Celsus, that “dead bodies are to be cast out as more worthless than dung;” and yet, with reference even to this, one might say that dung, indeed, ought to be cast out, while the dead bodies of men, on account of the soul by which they were inhabited, especially if it had been virtuous, ought not to be cast out. For, in harmony with those laws which are based upon the principles of equity, bodies are deemed worthy of sepulture, with the honours accorded on such occasions, that no insult, so far as can be helped, may be offered to the soul which dwelt within, by casting forth the body (after the soul has departed) like that of the animals. Let it not then be held, contrary to reason, that it is the will of God to declare that the grain of wheat is not immortal, but the stalk which springs from it, while the body which is sown in corruption is not, but that which is raised by Him in incorruption. But according to Celsus, God Himself is the reason of all things, while according to our view it is His Son, of whom we say in philosophic language, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” while in our judgment also, God cannot do anything which is contrary to reason, or contrary to Himself.

They may give peah at either at the beginning of the [reaping of the] field or at the middle of it. Rabbi Shimon says: as long as he gives at the end according to the set amount. Rabbi Judah says: if he leaves one stalk, he can rely on this as [fulfilling the law of] peah; and if he did not, then he only gives as ownerless property.

The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk: If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; But if not, it belongs to the poor. If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor]. Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his? Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him.

The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk: If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; But if not, it belongs to the poor. If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor]. Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his? Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him.

A standing stalk of grain that contains two seahs and he forgot it, it is not considered “forgotten.” If it does not contain two seahs now, but is fit to yield two seahs, even if it was of an inferior kind of barley, it is regarded as full barley [grains].

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

A standing stalk of grain can save a sheaf and another standing stalk [from being regarded as “forgotten”]. A sheaf cannot save either another sheaf or a standing stalk. What is the standing stalk of grain that can save a sheaf? Anything which has not been forgotten, even though it is a single stalk.

What is peret? [Grapes] which fall down during the harvesting. If while he was harvesting [the grapes], he cut off an entire cluster by its stalk, and it got tangled up in the [grape] leaves, and then it fell from his hand to the ground and the single berries were separated, it belongs to the owner. One who places a basket under the vine when he is harvesting [the grapes], behold he is a robber of the poor. Concerning him it is said: “Do not remove the landmark of those that come up (olim)” (Proverbs 22:28).

He who weeds allium plants (whose seeds do not disintegrate) for a Gentile, even though the produce is untithed he eat from them in a casual fashion. Saplings of terumah which had become unclean and were re-planted, become clean from their uncleanness. But they must not be eaten until the edible part [of the stalk] has been lopped off. Rabbi Judah says: he must [before eating] lop off a second time that which grew on the edible part.

Fenugreek which fell into a vat of wine: If it was terumah or second tithe and there is in the seed alone without the stalk sufficient to impart a flavor [it is forbidden]. But if it was seventh year produce or mixed seeds in vineyards, or dedicated produce, [it is forbidden] if in both seed and stalk there is sufficient to impart a flavor.

Fenugreek which fell into a vat of wine: If it was terumah or second tithe and there is in the seed alone without the stalk sufficient to impart a flavor [it is forbidden]. But if it was seventh year produce or mixed seeds in vineyards, or dedicated produce, [it is forbidden] if in both seed and stalk there is sufficient to impart a flavor.

Red earth, as much as is required for a seal on merchandise bags, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: as much as is required for the seal on letters. Manure, or thin sand, as much as is required for fertilizing a cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: for fertilizing one leek plant. Thick sand, as much as is required for putting on a full plaster trowel. Reed, as much as is required for making a pen. But if it is thick or crushed, as much as is required for boiling the lightest of eggs beaten up and placed in a stew pot.

And these are the herbs with which one discharges his obligation on Pesah: with lettuce [hazaret]; with chicory [olshin]; with wild chicory [tamkah]; with picridium [harhavina], and with sonchus [maror]. They fulfill their obligation whether they are moist or dry, but not preserved [in vinegar], nor stewed nor boiled. And they combine to the size of an olive. And they fulfill their obligation with their stalk[s]. And with demai, and with first tithe from which terumah has been separated, and second tithe and sacred property which have been redeemed.

If there was a hole in the "eye" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid.

If there was a hole in the "eye" of an oven, the minimum size [for it to leave the category of being tightly closed] is the circumference of a burning spindle staff that can enter and come out [without being extinguished]. Rabbi Judah says: one that is not burning. If the hole appeared at its side, the minimum size must be that of the circumference of a spindle staff that can enter and come out while it is not burning. Rabbi Judah says: while burning. Rabbi Shimon says: if the hole is in the middle its size must be such that a spindle staff can enter it, but if it was at the side it need only be such as the spindle staff cannot actually enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning the stopper of a jar in which a hole appeared: the minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in an oat stalk. If the hole was in the middle the stalk should be able to enter, and if at the side it need not be able to enter. And similarly he used to rule concerning large stone jars in the stoppers of which appeared a hole. The minimum size is the circumference of the second knot in a reed. If the hole was in the middle the reed must be able to enter it, and if it was at the side the reed need not be able to enter it. When is this so? When the jars were made for wine, but if they were made for other liquids, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. When is this so? When the holes were not made by a person, but if they were made by a person, if they have even the smallest hole, they are unclean. If a hole appeared [in other vessels its prescribed size ] is as follows: if the vessel was used for food, [the hole must be one] through which olives can fall out; if for liquids, one that lets out liquids; If for either, the greater restriction is imposed [even with regard to the issue of] a tightly fitting cover [the size of the hole need only be] one that admits a liquid.

The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.

The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

A woman who was preserving vegetables in a pot and touched a leaf outside the pot on a dry spot, even though the leaf had an egg's bulk of volume, it alone becomes unclean while all the rest remains clean. If she touched it at a wet spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean. If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If it is returned into the pot, everything becomes unclean. If the woman was unclean due to contact with one who had corpse uncleanness, and she touched the leaf either at a wet spot or at a dry spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean; If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If a woman who was a tevulat yom emptied out the pot with unwashed hands, and she observed some liquid on her hands, and it is uncertain whether it was splashed from the pot or whether a stalk had touched her hands, the vegetables are invalid but the pot remains clean.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective.

Roots of garlic, onions or leeks that are still moist, or their top-parts, whether they are moist or dry, also the central stalk that is within the edible part, the roots of lettuce, the radish and the turnip, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the large roots of the radish are included, but its fibrous roots are not included. The roots of the mint, rue, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere, and the spine of an ear of grain, and its husk. Rabbi Elazar says: also the earth covering of roots; All these things contract and convey impurity and are included.

The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths. In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever. As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together.

The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths. In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever. As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together.

The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths. In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever. As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together.

Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled.

Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled.

The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness. The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened. Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them.

Rav Jeremiah said, one should start to pray only from a practical rule. Rav Jeremiah said, he who deals with public needs is like him who studies Torah. Rav Ḥuna said: a woman who saw a spot like a mustard seed sits and watches seven days of purification because of it; then he stood up and prayed. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said: He who draws blood from a dedicated animal committed larceny; that is one of the decided practices. Bar Qappara stated: Eleven days between periods is a practice taught to Moses at Sinai. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: One may add produce on the stalk and be tricky in order to free it from tithes. Abdan asked Rebbi: How many levels are there for dedicated things? He answered him: four. And how many levels for Terumah? He answered: three, then he stood up and prayed.

MISHNAH: One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle. Rebbi Simeon says, only on condition that he give the measure at the end. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he left one stalk standing he adds to it for peah; otherwise, he gives only as abandoned property.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

Two kinds, half moist and half dry, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. But did we not state: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill and mustard at three different places …” It is so: Either dill at three places or mustard at three places. Samuel says, because the first one does not wait for the last one. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they usually are being sown bed by bed. According to Samuel, he has to give from each stalk; according to Rebbi Joḥanan he has to give from each bed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left! Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears!

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

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

One person sowed turnips on his field; he used to cut them off and sell them. It happened that a fox made his nest in a turnip’s head. It happened in Shihin that one stalk of mustard plant had three leaves; one leaf was split off to cover a potter’s hut and they found on it three qab of mustard seed. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, I had a stem of mustard plant on my property and I climbed on it the way one climbs a fig tree.

How does he do it? He takes from the uppermost layer and puts it in order. Is that not forbidden because of robbery? Like that of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana who was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a vineyard. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he took one stalk, nothing was missing but counting them. How does he do it? He pays for one of them and puts it in order.

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

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

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower, or the borrower but not the lender. If he has no real estate but one who owes him has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.

Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower, or the borrower but not the lender. If he has no real estate but one who owes him has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.

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.

MISHNAH: Earth for a seal of merchandise, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, for seals of letters. Manure and sand to fertilize one cabbage stalk, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, to fertilize a stalk of leek. Coarse sand to add to a handful of lime, reed to make writing pen. If it was wide or splintered, to cook a most easily cooked egg, scrambled in a pan.

MISHNAH: Earth for a seal of merchandise, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, for seals of letters. Manure and sand to fertilize one cabbage stalk, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, to fertilize a stalk of leek. Coarse sand to add to a handful of lime, reed to make writing pen. If it was wide or splintered, to cook a most easily cooked egg, scrambled in a pan.

MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed.

“And wilted”. There are Tannaim who state, “but not wilted”. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “and wilted”, about a stalk. He who said, “but not wilted”, about leaves.

Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. So is the Mishnah: If one can shake it, it is qualified. It was stated: Myrtle and willow twig three, and lulav four. It was stated, by the cubit of five {hand-breadths}, the words of Rebbi Tarphon, but the Sages are saying, by the cubit of six. For Rebbi Tarphon, large hand-breadths; in the opinion of the Sages, thin hand-breadths. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch: The lulav a hand-breadth. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the hyssop a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon confirmed it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth, the ram’s horn a hand-breadth, the placenta a hand-breadth, and some are saying, also the third wall a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth except the spine? The hyssop a hand-breadth except for the stalk? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav; Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Parnakh, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Manisha in the name of Rav: The lulav a hand-breadth except for the spine; the hyssop a hand-breadth except for its stalks.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai said: It is written: “To all the hills which are to be worked by the harrow the fear of worm and snail will not come.” Just as the stalk fears the iron, so the hair fears the iron.

There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

It was stated: “One does not estimate a bet kor because it would diminish, nor a bet qab because it would inflate. But one estimates a bet se’ah of the field in question, how much it was worth and how much is it worth now. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If it ate shoots of the fig tree or plucked shoots of vines. But if it ate unripe grapes or unripe figs, one estimates them as fully grown fruits. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: If it ate fully grown produce, he pays for fully grown produce, [fruits of] trees, one estimates trees for him. Trees one estimates by the bet se’ah. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba: Produce not yet one-third ripe is estimated under the rules of trees.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one estimates a three-qab in sixty three-qabs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, one estimates a stalk in sixty stalks.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba says, any real estate …” Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

Rab Isaac b. Samuel quoted in objection : In the case of herbs wherewith one complies with the requirements of the law on Passover, they or their stalk are legitimate, but not if they have been pickled or cooked or sodden ! If thou thinkest they are to be regarded as remaining the same, why not when [these herbs are cooked] ? There it is different ;

But perhaps it means the stalk [itself]? Since the word] “bound” is used, it must refer to something which can be separated, and this is permanently bound.

What does "he goeth on his way weeping" indicate? Said R. Judah, it indicates that the ox on his way sowing was crying hungrily, but on his way back he was already eating the young green from the furrows. What does "he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him" indicate? Said R. Ḥisda or, as some say, it was taught in a Baraita, it indicates that in that year the stalk was one span long and the ear two spans.