stalks

But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they were come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said, “There came men unto thee who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands,” she answered them, “The two men whom ye seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone,” thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, “I know assuredly that the Lord your God hath given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore ye shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety.” And they said to her, “It shall be as thou hast spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as thou knowest that we are at hand, thou shalt gather all thy family under thy roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of thy dwelling shall perish.” Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. Ye see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman.

If, therefore, this prophetess confesses the resurrection, and does not deny the restoration of all things, and distinguishes the godly from the ungodly, it is in vain for them to deny our doctrine. Nay, indeed, they say they can show a resemblance of the resurrection, while they do not themselves believe the things they declare: for they say that there is a bird single in its kind which affords a copious demonstration of the resurrection, which they say is without a mate, and the only one in the creation. They call it a phœnix, and relate that every five hundred years it comes into Egypt, to that which is called the altar of the sun, and brings with it a great quantity of cinnamon, and cassia, and balsam-wood, and standing towards the east, as they say, and praying to the sun, of its own accord is burnt, and becomes dust; but that a worm arises again out of those ashes, and that when the same is warmed it is formed into a new-born phoenix; and when it is able to fly, it goes to Arabia, which is beyond the Egyptian countries. If, therefore, as even themselves say, a resurrection is exhibited by the means of an irrational bird, wherefore do they vainly disparage our accounts, when we profess that He who by His power brings that into being which was not in being before, is able to restore this body, and raise it up again after its dissolution? For on account of this full assurance of hope we undergo stripes, and persecutions, and deaths. Otherwise we should to no purpose undergo such things if we had not a full assurance of these promises, whereof we profess ourselves to be the preachers. As, therefore, we believe Moses when he says, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and we know that He did not want matter, but by His will alone brought those things into being which Christ was commanded to make; we mean the heaven, the earth, the sea, the light, the night, the day, the luminaries, the stars, the fowls, the fishes, and four-footed beasts, the creeping things, the plants, and the herbs; so also will He raise all men up by His will, as not wanting any assistance. For it is the work of the same power to create the world and to raise the dead. And then He made man, who was not a man before, of different parts, giving to him a soul made out of nothing. But now He will restore the bodies, which have been dissolved, to the souls that are still in being: for the rising again belongs to things laid down, not to things which have no being. He therefore that made the original bodies out of nothing, and fashioned various forms of them, will also again revive and raise up those that are dead. For He that formed man in the womb out of a little seed, and created in him a soul which was not in being before — as He Himself somewhere speaks to Jeremiah, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; and elsewhere, I am the Lord who established the heaven, and laid the foundations of the earth, and formed the spirit of man in him, — will also raise up all men, as being His workmanship; as also the divine Scripture testifies that God said to Christ, His only-begotten, Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. And God made man: after the image of God made He him; male and female made He them. And the most divine and patient Job, of whom the Scripture says that it is written, that he was to rise again with those whom the Lord raises up, speaks to God thus: Have you not milked me like milk, and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and favour, and Your visitation has preserved my spirit. Having these things within me, I know that You can do all things, and that nothing is impossible with You. Wherefore also our Saviour and Master Jesus Christ says, that what is impossible with men is possible with God. And David, the beloved of God, says: Your hands have made me, and fashioned me. And again: You know my frame. And afterward: You have fashioned me, and laid Your hand upon me. The knowledge of You is declared to be too wonderful for me; it is very great, I cannot attain unto it. Your eyes did see my substance, being yet imperfect; and all men shall be written in Your book. Nay, and Isaiah says in his prayer to Him: We are the clay, and You are the framer of us. If, therefore, man be His workmanship, made by Christ, by Him most certainly will he after he is dead be raised again, with intention either of being crowned for his good actions or punished for his transgressions. But if He, being the legislator, judges with righteousness; as He punishes the ungodly, so does He do good to and saves the faithful. And those saints who for His sake have been slain by men, some of them He will make light as the stars, and make others bright as the luminaries, as Gabriel said to Daniel. All we of the faithful, therefore, who are the disciples of Christ, believe His promises. For He that has promised it cannot lie; as says the blessed prophet David: The Lord is faithful in all His words, and holy in all His works. For He that framed for Himself a body out of a virgin, is also the Former of other men. And He that raised Himself from the dead, will also raise again all that are laid down. He who raises wheat out of the ground with many stalks from one grain, He who makes the tree that is cut down send forth fresh branches, He that made Aaron's dry rod put forth buds, will raise us up in glory; He that raised Him up that had the palsy whole, and healed him that had the withered hand, He that supplied a defective part to him that was born blind from clay and spittle, will raise us up; He that satisfied five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, and caused a remainder of twelve baskets, and out of water made wine, and sent a piece of money out of a fish's mouth by me Peter to those that demanded tribute, will raise the dead. For we testify all these things concerning Him, and the prophets testify the other. We who have eaten and drunk with Him, and have been spectators of His wonderful works, and of His life, and of His conduct, and of His words, and of His sufferings, and of His death, and of His resurrection from the dead, and who associated with Him forty days after His resurrection, and who received a command from Him to preach the Gospel to all the world, and to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them into His death by the authority of the God of the universe, who is His Father, and by the testimony of the Spirit, who is His Comforter, — we teach you all these things which He appointed us by His constitutions, before He was received up in our sight into heaven, to Him that sent Him. And if you will believe, you shall be happy; but if you will not believe, we shall be found innocent, and clear from your incredulity.

Now when he had pitched his camp, the spies came to him immediately, well acquainted with the whole state of the Canaanites; for at first, before they were at all discovered, they took a full view of the city of Jericho without disturbance, and saw which parts of the walls were strong, and which parts were otherwise, and indeed insecure, and which of the gates were so weak as might afford an entrance to their army. Now those that met them took no notice of them when they saw them, and supposed they were only strangers, who used to be very curious in observing everything in the city, and did not take them for enemies; but at even they retired to a certain inn that was near to the wall, whither they went to eat their supper; which supper when they had done, and were considering how to get away, information was given to the king as he was at supper, that there were some persons come from the Hebrews' camp to view the city as spies, and that they were in the inn kept by Rahab, and were very solicitous that they might not be discovered. So he sent immediately some to them, and commanded to catch them, and bring them to him, that he might examine them by torture, and learn what their business was there. As soon as Rahab understood that these messengers were coming, she hid the spies under stalks of flax, which were laid to dry on the top of her house; and said to the messengers that were sent by the king, that certain unknown strangers had supped with her a little before sun-setting, and were gone away, who might easily be taken, if they were any terror to the city, or likely to bring any danger to the king. So these messengers being thus deluded by the woman, and suspecting no imposition, went their ways, without so much as searching the inn; but they immediately pursued them along those roads which they most probably supposed them to have gone, and those particularly which led to the river, but could hear no tidings of them; so they left off the pains of any further pursuit. But when the tumult was over, Rahab brought the men down, and desired them as soon as they should have obtained possession of the land of Canaan, when it would be in their power to make her amends for her preservation of them, to remember what danger she had undergone for their sakes; for that if she had been caught concealing them, she could not have escaped a terrible destruction, she and all her family with her, and so bid them go home; and desired them to swear to her to preserve her and her family when they should take the city, and destroy all its inhabitants, as they had decreed to do; for so far she said she had been assured by those Divine miracles of which she had been informed. So these spies acknowledged that they owed her thanks for what she had done already, and withal swore to requite her kindness, not only in words, but in deeds. But they gave her this advice, That when she should perceive that the city was about to be taken, she should put her goods, and all her family, by way of security, in her inn, and to hang out scarlet threads before her doors, [or windows,] that the commander of the Hebrews might know her house, and take care to do her no harm; for, said they, we will inform him of this matter, because of the concern thou hast had to preserve us: but if any one of thy family fall in the battle, do not thou blame us; and we beseech that God, by whom we have sworn, not then to be displeased with us, as though we had broken our oaths. So these men, when they had made this agreement, went away, letting themselves down by a rope from the wall, and escaped, and came and told their own people whatsoever they had done in their journey to this city. Joshua also told Eleazar the high priest, and the senate, what the spies had sworn to Rahab, who continued what had been sworn.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

One who gives his field a striped appearance and leaves behind moist stalks: Rabbi Akiva says: he gives peah from each and every stripe. But the sages say: from one stripe for the whole field. The sages agree with Rabbi Akiba that one who sows dill or mustard in three places must give peah from each place.

[Grain found in] ant holes where the stalks are still standing, behold it still belongs to the owner. After the harvesters [had passed over them], those found in the top parts [of the ant holes belong] to the poor, but [those found] on the bottom parts [belong] to the owner. Rabbi Meir says: it all belongs to the poor, for gleanings about which there is any doubt are regarded as gleanings.

Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.” Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.” Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”. Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.” Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.” All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel. And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.

Grain used for fodder or [stalks] used for binding sheaves, and also garlic-stalks used for tying other bunches, or tied bunches of garlic and onions they [all are not subject to the laws of] forgotten. Anything stored in the ground like arum, garlic and onions: Rabbi Judah says: they do not subject to the laws of “forgotten”; But the sages say: they are subject to the laws of “forgotten.”

Grain used for fodder or [stalks] used for binding sheaves, and also garlic-stalks used for tying other bunches, or tied bunches of garlic and onions they [all are not subject to the laws of] forgotten. Anything stored in the ground like arum, garlic and onions: Rabbi Judah says: they do not subject to the laws of “forgotten”; But the sages say: they are subject to the laws of “forgotten.”

Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd. Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans. But I recognize their words [as more acceptable] than mine.

Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd. Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans. But I recognize their words [as more acceptable] than mine.

Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd. Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans. But I recognize their words [as more acceptable] than mine.

Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd. Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans. But I recognize their words [as more acceptable] than mine.

If one had bunches of fenugreek of mixed seeds of the vineyard, they must be burned. If he had bunches of fenugreek of untithed produce, he must beat them and calculate the amount of seed within them and set aside [terumah] from the seed, but he need not separate terumah from the stalks. But if he did set aside [the terumah from the stalks before he beat the bunches] he must not say: “I will beat out [the seed] and take the stalks and give only the seed” but he must give the stalks together with the seed.

If one had bunches of fenugreek of mixed seeds of the vineyard, they must be burned. If he had bunches of fenugreek of untithed produce, he must beat them and calculate the amount of seed within them and set aside [terumah] from the seed, but he need not separate terumah from the stalks. But if he did set aside [the terumah from the stalks before he beat the bunches] he must not say: “I will beat out [the seed] and take the stalks and give only the seed” but he must give the stalks together with the seed.

If one had bunches of fenugreek of mixed seeds of the vineyard, they must be burned. If he had bunches of fenugreek of untithed produce, he must beat them and calculate the amount of seed within them and set aside [terumah] from the seed, but he need not separate terumah from the stalks. But if he did set aside [the terumah from the stalks before he beat the bunches] he must not say: “I will beat out [the seed] and take the stalks and give only the seed” but he must give the stalks together with the seed.

If one had bunches of fenugreek of mixed seeds of the vineyard, they must be burned. If he had bunches of fenugreek of untithed produce, he must beat them and calculate the amount of seed within them and set aside [terumah] from the seed, but he need not separate terumah from the stalks. But if he did set aside [the terumah from the stalks before he beat the bunches] he must not say: “I will beat out [the seed] and take the stalks and give only the seed” but he must give the stalks together with the seed.

He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them.

He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them.

He who vows not to wear garments is permitted sack-cloth, curtain, and blanket wrapping. If he says, “Konam, if wool comes upon me,” he may cover himself with wool shearings; [Konam] if flax comes upon me”, he may cover himself with stalks of flax. Rabbi Judah says: It all depends upon the person who vows, [thus:] if he was bearing a burden [with wool or flax] and perspires and had bad odor, and he said “Konam if wool or flax come upon me,” he may wear them, but not throw them [as a bundle] over his back.

Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.”

If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.”

The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs. What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.

There are three [kinds of] bet peras: A field in which a grave was plowed may be planted with any kind of plant, But must not be sown with any kind of seed, except with seed [yielding produce] which is reaped. If [such produce] were plucked, the threshing-floor must be piled up in [the field] itself, and the [grain] sifted through two sieves, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: grain [must be sifted] through two sieves, but pulse through three sieves. And he must burn the stubble and the stalks. [Such a field] conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage but does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing.

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together: The roots of cabbage-stalks, Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads, [And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots]. Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.

The following neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together: The roots of cabbage-stalks, Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads, [And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots]. Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.

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.

Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd. The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together. As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile.

Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd. The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together. As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile.

Rav Huna said, three who ate each one by himself and then came together do “invite”. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three groups. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three ate together. Rebbi Jonah on that of Rav Huna: If he dipped three stalks of hyssop each one by himself and then took them together, he may sprinkle with it. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three bundles. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three were dipped together. If you want to say that we do not infer rules of hyssop from rules of benedictions, do we not see the rabbis deal with sukkah and learn from pourable mud?. As we have stated (Mishnah Sukkah 1:10): “If the roofing was three hand-breadths away from the walls it is invalid.” Hence less than that is acceptable. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashib answered, pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it.

It was stated: Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field, so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.

It was stated: Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field, so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.

MISHNAH: Rectangles of grain between olive trees: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching. If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot.

MISHNAH: Two sheaves may qualify as forgotten sheaves, three may not. Two heaps of olives or carob may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two plants of hemp may qualify as “forgotten sheaves”, three may not. Two berries may qualify as dropped berries, three may not. Two stalks may be gleanings, three may not, following the House of Hillel. About all of these, the House of Shammai say three are for the poor and four for the proprietor.

So far if [the planting] is covering [the entire area]. What about producing single stalks? Just as you say of a vineyard that there is no difference between covering or producing [single stalks], so here also there is no difference between continuous planting or producing single stalks.

So far if [the planting] is covering [the entire area]. What about producing single stalks? Just as you say of a vineyard that there is no difference between covering or producing [single stalks], so here also there is no difference between continuous planting or producing single stalks.

So far if [the planting] is covering [the entire area]. What about producing single stalks? Just as you say of a vineyard that there is no difference between covering or producing [single stalks], so here also there is no difference between continuous planting or producing single stalks.

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.

MISHNAH: If somebody was passing through a vineyard and accidentally dropped some seeds, or that seeds were brought there by manure or water, or someone sowed and the wind carried the seeds behind him, all this is permitted. If the wind carried the seeds before him, Rebbi Aqiba says, if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “If they produce greenery it should be plowed under:” all is permitted. “If they are green stalks, they should be broken:” the straw is permitted but the grains are forbidden. “If they produced grain it must be burned:” all is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all is forbidden. What does our statement mean, “if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned”? It parallels what we have stated there: “Orlah and kilaim of a vineyard. Anything that usually is buried should be buried. Anything that usually is burned should be burned.”

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “If they produce greenery it should be plowed under:” all is permitted. “If they are green stalks, they should be broken:” the straw is permitted but the grains are forbidden. “If they produced grain it must be burned:” all is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all is forbidden. What does our statement mean, “if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned”? It parallels what we have stated there: “Orlah and kilaim of a vineyard. Anything that usually is buried should be buried. Anything that usually is burned should be burned.”

“And similarly for a bunch of vegetable.” The Mishnah deals with the case that it became impure as a bunch but when the single stalks were impure and he bound them together, this does not apply. But will it not be split and made into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected. What is the situation if a bundle became impure, he unbound it and bound it again?

MISHNAH: One does not make honey from dates, or wine from apples, or vinegar from winter grapes, nor does one change any fruit of heave or second tithe from the way it grew except olives and grapes. Nobody endures the forty because of ‘orlah, except for produce of olives and grapes; one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for products from olives and grapes. Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes. Nothing is presented on the altar except what comes from olives and grapes. The stalks of fresh figs, dried figs, kelisin, and carobs are forbidden to laymen.

It was stated: “Everything that is food at the start but not at the end.” What is this? As we stated: “He who keeps the castor plant for seeds, his opinion is inoperative; for single stalks it is not inoperative.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes?

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor. But he says from the following: “If someone keeps cabbage for seeds, his opinion is inoperative; for single stalks it is not inoperative.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes?

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

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig, if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

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

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

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.

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

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is not food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is detached, so everything detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to him, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dropped from the animal on food. There, Rebbi Yose said “a scroll”, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, “any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure”. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: “a vessel”.

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

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

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.

MISHNAH: Anybody who adds inquiries is praiseworthy. It happened that Ben Zakkai cross-examined about fig stalks. What is the difference between investigations and cross-examinations? In investigations, if one said “I do not know”, their testimony is worthless. In cross-examinations, if one said “I do not know”, or even two say “we do not know,” their testimony remains valid. Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.

HALAKHAH: “Anybody who adds inquiries,” etc. How did he pluck them? He plucked them with their stalks. How did he eat them? With their pits.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: White figs with their stalks and pine cones with their attachments.

Rab Giddel said in the name of Rab : Over jasmine the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods." Rab Hananel said in the name of Rab: Over sea-rush the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods." Mar Zotra said : What is the Scriptural authority? "She had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax" (Josh. ii. 6).

R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats boiled vegetables, etc. Is there any boiled vegetable which is to be regarded as nourishment? Rab Ashe said: It refers to cabbage-stalks.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’.

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. 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.

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. 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.

But has it not been taught: R. Yose says: If at the outset a bunch of hyssop has only two stalks or if its remnants consist of one, it is invalid, since a bunch is not valid unless at the outset it contains three and its remnants are no less than two? Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Yose three are indispensable, according to the rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment.

So it has also been taught: If a bunch of hyssop contains two stalks at the outset or if its remnant consists of one it is valid; it is not invalid unless at the outset or when it is a remnant it consists of one.

R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests grapes for the vat, does not render their "handles" [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness;

The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.

The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.

What is this [comparison]? One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?

It is usable to hold them by their stalks when he takes it apart.

Why is the latter rain called malḳōsh? Said R. Ḥanilai b. 'Idi in the name of Samuel, because it crushes the stubbornness of the Israelites. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael reads, because it fills the grain in its stalks. Another Baraita reads, because it falls upon both the ears and the stalks.

Why is the latter rain called malḳōsh? Said R. Ḥanilai b. 'Idi in the name of Samuel, because it crushes the stubbornness of the Israelites. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael reads, because it fills the grain in its stalks. Another Baraita reads, because it falls upon both the ears and the stalks.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.