tanna

Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa: Is it not reasonable that the end of the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is the moment (of Rebbi Yose)? He answered: I also am of that opinion. Rebbi Ḥizqiah does not say so but every single moment in the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is in doubt. Rebbi Mana said: I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Ḥizqiah from what we have taught (Zabim I,6): “He saw one emission during daytime and one at dusk or one at dusk and the next one the next day; if he knows that the emission at dusk was partially during daytime and partially during nighttime, he certainly is impure and needs a sacrifice but if it is questionable whether the emission occurred partially during daytime and partially during nighttime he certainly is impure but it is questionable whether he owes a sacrifice.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan: Who is the Tanna who will split an emission into two? Rebbi Yose! I said to him: Here is your problem since you say that every single moment in the half a mil of Rebbi Neḥemiah is in doubt. What is his question good for? For the time when Elijah will come and say: that is dusk.

New Section. “Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn.” The statement of Rabban Gamliel is parallel to that of Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Sometimes a person reads the Shema‘ [twice], once before dawn and once at dawn, and has fulfilled his obligation for day and night.” Hence Rabban Gamliel is like Rebbi Simeon for evening prayers, is he also like him in the morning? His position might be that expressed by Rebbi Zeïra the Tanna, the brother of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, and of Rav Abba bar Ḥana: He who reads with the men of the Mishmar did not fulfill his duty because they were too early.

Some Tannaïm formulate: “Between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey.” But some Tannaïm formulate: “That a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him”. That is what we have to say that he who says between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey is parallel to him who says between dark blue and the color of leeks; he who says that a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him is parallel to him who says between dark blue and white. But they said that its preferred obligation is at sunrise so that one may join the mention of redemption to prayer and pray at daytime. Rebbi Zeïra said: I found the reason (Ps. 72:5): “They will fear You with the sun.” Mar Uqba said: The very religious were getting up early and reading the Shema‘ so that they could follow it directly at sunrise with the Amidah prayer.

Some Tannaïm formulate: “Between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey.” But some Tannaïm formulate: “That a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him”. That is what we have to say that he who says between wolf and dog, between domesticated and wild donkey is parallel to him who says between dark blue and the color of leeks; he who says that a man should be four ammot distant from another man and recognize him is parallel to him who says between dark blue and white. But they said that its preferred obligation is at sunrise so that one may join the mention of redemption to prayer and pray at daytime. Rebbi Zeïra said: I found the reason (Ps. 72:5): “They will fear You with the sun.” Mar Uqba said: The very religious were getting up early and reading the Shema‘ so that they could follow it directly at sunrise with the Amidah prayer.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: One may eat a snack while wearing them, but one may not eat a regular meal while wearing them; one may doze while wearing them, but one may not sleep while wearing them. Some Tannaïm formulate: One says the benediction once; some Tannaïm formulate: One says the benediction twice. He who says one says the benediction once, how can he be right? He who says, one says the benediction twice, because he ate and then they are not on him. Rebbi Zeïra said, Abba bar Jeremiah talks about one who eats only snacks.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: One may eat a snack while wearing them, but one may not eat a regular meal while wearing them; one may doze while wearing them, but one may not sleep while wearing them. Some Tannaïm formulate: One says the benediction once; some Tannaïm formulate: One says the benediction twice. He who says one says the benediction once, how can he be right? He who says, one says the benediction twice, because he ate and then they are not on him. Rebbi Zeïra said, Abba bar Jeremiah talks about one who eats only snacks.

If one connected the letters; there is a Tanna who stated: it is valid, and there is a Tanna who stated: it is invalid. Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: He who says it is valid, below; he who said it is invalid, on top. For example, ארצך .ארצנו, תפארתנוּ is questionable, תפארתך is questionable.

If one connected the letters; there is a Tanna who stated: it is valid, and there is a Tanna who stated: it is invalid. Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: He who says it is valid, below; he who said it is invalid, on top. For example, ארצך .ארצנו, תפארתנוּ is questionable, תפארתך is questionable.

Some Tannaïm have stated: One should first pray and then ask for one’s personal needs. Some Tannaïm have stated: One should first ask for one’s personal needs and then pray. He who says, one should first pray and then ask for one’s personal needs (Ps. 102:1) “Prayer of the deprived one who wraps himself up” and afterwards “and before the Eternal he pours out his speech.” But he who says, one should first ask for one’s personal needs and then pray, (1Kings 8:28) “To listen to lamentation” and after that “and to prayer.” The opinion of the sages: Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna, the private person asks for his personal needs in “He Who hears prayer”.

Some Tannaïm have stated: One should first pray and then ask for one’s personal needs. Some Tannaïm have stated: One should first ask for one’s personal needs and then pray. He who says, one should first pray and then ask for one’s personal needs (Ps. 102:1) “Prayer of the deprived one who wraps himself up” and afterwards “and before the Eternal he pours out his speech.” But he who says, one should first ask for one’s personal needs and then pray, (1Kings 8:28) “To listen to lamentation” and after that “and to prayer.” The opinion of the sages: Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna, the private person asks for his personal needs in “He Who hears prayer”.

There we have stated: Rabban Gamliel says, the reader frees the public from their obligation. The older Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel for the prayer accompanying the blowing of the Shofar. Rebbi Zeïra and Rav Ḥisda were sitting there for the blowing of the Shofar. After they finished the prayer, Rav Ḥisda got up and prayed. Rebbi Zeïra said to him: Did we not pray just now? He said to him, I prayed and I am repeating the prayer, because Westerners came down and said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel for the prayer accompanying the blowing of the Shofar, but I was inattentive. If I had been attentive, I would have fulfilled my duty. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is fine. All Tannaïm state it in the name of Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Hoshaia states it in the name of the Sages. Rebbi Ada from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: This is only if he attended from the start. Rebbi Tanḥum said, the Mishnah expresses this: The order of benediction, one says “Forefathers”, “Greatness”, and “Sanctification of the Name”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who recites the blessings for the Shema‘, he who stands before the ark, he who lifts his hands, he who reads in the Torah, he who recites Haphtarah from the prophets, and he who recites any blessing for obligations spelled out in the Torah, should not recite Amen after his own benediction. If he answered, he is uncivilized. Some Tannaïm have stated: he is uncivilized; and some Tannaïm have stated: he is wise. Rav Ḥisda said: He who said “he is wise” refers to him who answers at the end, but he who says “he is uncivilized” refers to him who answers every single benediction.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who recites the blessings for the Shema‘, he who stands before the ark, he who lifts his hands, he who reads in the Torah, he who recites Haphtarah from the prophets, and he who recites any blessing for obligations spelled out in the Torah, should not recite Amen after his own benediction. If he answered, he is uncivilized. Some Tannaïm have stated: he is uncivilized; and some Tannaïm have stated: he is wise. Rav Ḥisda said: He who said “he is wise” refers to him who answers at the end, but he who says “he is uncivilized” refers to him who answers every single benediction.

“ He who drinks water for his thirst says ‘That everything was created by His word.’” Rebbi Jonah said, except pick-axe water. Rebbi Yose said, on any water that he thirsts for. Rebbi Abun said, he who drinks pick-axe water, what does he say? “Praise to Him Who created medicinal waters.” Some Tannaïm state “deqarim water”, other Tannaïm state “deqalim waters”. He who said deqarim (pick-axe) waters, because they pierce the gall bladder. And he who says deqalim (date palm) waters, because they gush forth between two palm trees.

“ He who drinks water for his thirst says ‘That everything was created by His word.’” Rebbi Jonah said, except pick-axe water. Rebbi Yose said, on any water that he thirsts for. Rebbi Abun said, he who drinks pick-axe water, what does he say? “Praise to Him Who created medicinal waters.” Some Tannaïm state “deqarim water”, other Tannaïm state “deqalim waters”. He who said deqarim (pick-axe) waters, because they pierce the gall bladder. And he who says deqalim (date palm) waters, because they gush forth between two palm trees.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf to which you may stretch out your hand and take it. Some Tannaïm stated: “And you forget a sheaf,” but not a stack.

Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”

Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

It was stated: “He answers to the fellowship, his sons and household answer to him.” Some Tannaïm state: “He, his sons, and his household answer to the fellowship.” They do not disagree: the first, if they are dependent on their father, the second, if they do not depend on their father. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Saul stated, adults answer to the fellowship, minors answer to him.

HALAKHAH: In the opinion of this Tanna, they gave a measure for dry produce but not for fluids, they gave a value for fluids but not for dry produce. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A hin is wholesale, less than a hin is retail. A nummus is retail, more than a nummus is wholesale.” In the opinion of that Tanna, they gave a measure for fluids but not for dry produce, they gave a value for dry produce but not for fluids.

HALAKHAH: In the opinion of this Tanna, they gave a measure for dry produce but not for fluids, they gave a value for fluids but not for dry produce. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A hin is wholesale, less than a hin is retail. A nummus is retail, more than a nummus is wholesale.” In the opinion of that Tanna, they gave a measure for fluids but not for dry produce, they gave a value for dry produce but not for fluids.

“Cohanim who prepare dough in purity should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year.” Some Tannaïm stated: “They should be inquisitive.” Rebbi Phineas said, he who says that they should be inquisitive, because of their ḥallah; he who says that they should not be inquisitive, for he would save him from the simple sin and lead him to a deadly one. Ṭevel is a deadly sin, the Sabbatical year is a simple prohibition.

HALAKHAH: We have stated, “which contains.” Some Tannaïm state, “into which fell.” Rebbi Mana said, he who says “which contains” means one in 24, he who says “into which fell” means one in 25. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both for him who says “which contains” and for him who says “into which fell,” it means one in 24. How is that? “Which contains,” if it is cut, “into which fell,” if it is standing.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

“ The trunk is aligned but the top is not aligned, that is a vineyard. The top is aligned but the trunk is not aligned, that is not a vineyard. If they were thin, but when they grow thick they will be aligned, that is a vineyard. How does one know that they are aligned? One brings a rope and stretches it.” Some Tannaïm state: “From within.” But some Tannaïm state: “From without.” Rebbi Jonah said, he who says “from within,” within a hand-breadth, but he who says “from without” requires that it touches. “If the outer row is not aligned in its trunks, one reserves for it the space to tend it and one may sow the rest.” Rebbi Yose says, if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden; outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted but a vineyard is forbidden.

“ The trunk is aligned but the top is not aligned, that is a vineyard. The top is aligned but the trunk is not aligned, that is not a vineyard. If they were thin, but when they grow thick they will be aligned, that is a vineyard. How does one know that they are aligned? One brings a rope and stretches it.” Some Tannaïm state: “From within.” But some Tannaïm state: “From without.” Rebbi Jonah said, he who says “from within,” within a hand-breadth, but he who says “from without” requires that it touches. “If the outer row is not aligned in its trunks, one reserves for it the space to tend it and one may sow the rest.” Rebbi Yose says, if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden; outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted but a vineyard is forbidden.

There, we have stated: “All tied-up water skins are pure except those of Arabs. Rebbi Meïr says, temporarily tied ones are pure, permanently tied ones are impure. Rebbi Yose says, all tied ones are pure.” Some Tannaïm state it inverted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Like our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, the indicator of Kelim is Kilaim, for if it were not so, what would be the difference between permanent and temporary tie? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: A permanent tie must be cut, a temporary tie does not have to be cut.

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say that it is Rebbi Meïr’s. [An animal] which was worshipped: Some Tannaïm state that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s; some Tannaïm state that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted. They wanted to say, the opinion that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s is Rebbi Meïr’s and Rebbi Jehudah’s; the opinion that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted, is Rebbi Yose’s and Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there that a living thing is forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person, so anything that is not yours may be forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person.

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say that it is Rebbi Meïr’s. [An animal] which was worshipped: Some Tannaïm state that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s; some Tannaïm state that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted. They wanted to say, the opinion that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s is Rebbi Meïr’s and Rebbi Jehudah’s; the opinion that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted, is Rebbi Yose’s and Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there that a living thing is forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person, so anything that is not yours may be forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person.

“When does grain start to sanctify? When it is a third grown.” Some Tannaïm state: When it grew roots. He who says when it is a third grown supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says when it grew roots supports Rebbi Hoshaia.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“And not a Libyan donkey.” Some Tannaïm state: “Not a nybrqvs.” He who says libdĕqēs on the name of Lybian and (Dan. 11:43) “Lybians and Nubians in His train.” He who says nybrqvs ‘bhṭs, What is ‘bḥṭs? A mounting donkey. Rebbi Jonah: Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations, it means that Libya is identical with Egypt.

Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Why does he not say one follows Rebbi Eliezer. There are Tannaïm who switch their statements.

Ropes of purple wool are forbidden. Some Tannaïm state, they are permitted. He who says they are forbidden, for example those of embroiderers who tie them on. He who says they are permitted, for if he makes himself thin, it will fall down.

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough,” etc. Who is the Tanna who considers humidity? He is Rebbi Meïr. Then Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Simeon the House of Hillel? It must be that Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah. Could we conclude that in our Mishnah Rebbi Meïr follows the first Mishnah and Rebbi Simeon the later Mishnah? But for Rebbi Meïr it is taught as a disagreement and for Rebbi Simeon it is the opinion of everybody. Hence, the author of “until when may one plough a shadeless field in the year preceding the Sabbatical” is Rebbi Meïr, but following Rebbi Simeon everybody agrees to “until Pentecost.”

Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Simeon holds with Rebbi Joshua in cutting, that there are two tannaїtic positions: “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth.” But there are three Tannaïm. “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth,” even after that. “Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it,” until Pentecost.

Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Simeon holds with Rebbi Joshua in cutting, that there are two tannaїtic positions: “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth.” But there are three Tannaïm. “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth,” even after that. “Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it,” until Pentecost.

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

Is it the same on the intermediate days of a holiday? A Tanna was found who stated: “A person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces, in a Sabbatical year but not during he intermediate days of a holiday.” Is it the same for stones? It was found stated “including stones”. “The heart knows whether it is straight or crooked.” Rebbi Yosah in the name of Menaḥem: Rebbi Aqiba followed his own rule. He saw a person pruning his vineyard. He said to him, is that not forbidden? He said to him, I need it to make basket weave. The heart knows whether it is for basket weave or for crookedness.

It was stated: “Produce of the Land that was exported is removed at its place, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one returns it to the Land and removes it, as it is written (Lev. 25:7): ‘In your Land shall all its produce be food.’ ” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Immi taught following the first Tanna for leniency. Rebbi Hila said, but he should not move it from place to place.

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

About leaves preserved with sprouts, some Tannaïm state: both of them are subject to removal. Some Tannaïm state: neither of them is subject to removal. Leaves are subject to removal, sprouts are not subject to removal. He who says [both] are not subject to removal is Rebbi Joshua; he who says [leaves] are subject to removal but sprouts are not subject to removal is Rabban Gamliel.

About leaves preserved with sprouts, some Tannaïm state: both of them are subject to removal. Some Tannaïm state: neither of them is subject to removal. Leaves are subject to removal, sprouts are not subject to removal. He who says [both] are not subject to removal is Rebbi Joshua; he who says [leaves] are subject to removal but sprouts are not subject to removal is Rabban Gamliel.

In the first case, you say “the roses should be taken out”, in the second case “all is subject to removal”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is from two [different] Tannaïm. Rebbi Yose said, I can explain those roses by two conditions: “If new roses are preserved in old oil”, Sabbatical roses preserved in oil of the sixth year; “old in new”, Sabbatical roses preserved in eighth year’s [oil].

Rebbi Yose said, they disagree for general usage, but for drinking even Rebbi Yose would agree. Who is the Tanna of “but one may give to drink to the water drawer”? Rebbi Yose! Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody; one statement refers to humans, the other to animals.

It was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who saidthat washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life. Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaїm state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaїm state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.

“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaїm state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaїm state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.

They stated before Rebbi Abbahu: “Heave does not interfere with First Fruits.” He said to them, this is from Abba Palaemon. Rebbi Yose asked, which [statement of] Abba Palaemon? Rebbi Mana said to him, I heard my father stating: “First fruits in his right hand, heave in his left hand.” Some Tannaїm state, “he transgresses,”, some Tannaїm state, “he does not transgress.” He who says he transgresses, the rabbis; he who says he does not transgress, Abba Palaemon.

They stated before Rebbi Abbahu: “Heave does not interfere with First Fruits.” He said to them, this is from Abba Palaemon. Rebbi Yose asked, which [statement of] Abba Palaemon? Rebbi Mana said to him, I heard my father stating: “First fruits in his right hand, heave in his left hand.” Some Tannaїm state, “he transgresses,”, some Tannaїm state, “he does not transgress.” He who says he transgresses, the rabbis; he who says he does not transgress, Abba Palaemon.

Is Rebbi Eliezer stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient in this case? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is [a disagreement of] Tannaїm: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted, if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”

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

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

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

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, who is the Tanna of pecking? “Rabban Gamliel says, also the snake because it spits out.” Rebbi Jonah said, who would turn commandments into peckings for us?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

“ One does not transgress ‘do not muzzle’ while softening legumes or fenugreek, but it is forbidden because of the bad impression.” Some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” But some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is not permitted to you.”

“ One does not transgress ‘do not muzzle’ while softening legumes or fenugreek, but it is forbidden because of the bad impression.” Some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” But some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is not permitted to you.”

This all is if the outer skin does not impart taste. But if it does, there are Tannaïm who state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” The Mishnah there implies also threshing which is not permitted to you, since we have stated: “He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal.”

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

It was stated: A person may use a trick so his workers will eat ten and cut one. Some Tannaïm stated: That they will cut ten and eat one. We understand “that they will eat ten and cut one.” But “that they will cut ten and eat one”? Rebbi Abin said, that you should not say it is as if done after the end of their work, and it should be obligated.

Some Tannaїm state: Because it is not proper for a learned person to eat in public. As for example, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon who was eating in public and was seen by Rebbi Meїr who asked him, are you eating in public? He effaced himself.

Our Mishnah follows the House of Shammai who say, all has the status of inside. It was stated: If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai.13

In addition, it was stated: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit? Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty.

In addition, it was stated: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit? Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty.

Who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell heave which is forbidden to lay people, since Second Tithe is permitted to lay people, one should certainly be permitted to sell it. No, if you assert this for heave which does not need an enclosure, what can you imply for Second Tithe which needs an enclosure? First Fruits shall prove it which need an enclosure and one may sell them! No, if you assert this for First Fruits which do not implicate their monetary substitute, what can you imply for Second Heave which implicates its monetary substitute! The Sabbatical shall prove it which implicates its monetary substitute and it is permitted to sell it! Rebbi Yudan said, from this? The sale of Sabbatical produce is its redemption.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.

Palm-leaf baskets of dates, plates of dates became profane. Some Tannaїm state that boxes of dates did become, some Tannaïm state that they did not become. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said they did become, when they were pressed. He who said they did not become, [meant] when not pressed.

Palm-leaf baskets of dates, plates of dates became profane. Some Tannaїm state that boxes of dates did become, some Tannaïm state that they did not become. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said they did become, when they were pressed. He who said they did not become, [meant] when not pressed.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width. But did we not state: In a chamber built flush with the wall of the Temple courtyard one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices, but an impure person who enters there cannot be punished. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: “Rebbi Yose said, these are the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”

Rebbi Immi said, Kama came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They said to him, go and pay according to those Tannaїm: “One redeems Second Tithe when it is cheap, not when it is expensive; at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.” So far for large quantities, what about small ones? Even so, at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.

Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his ṭevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his ṭevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

HALAKHAH: “He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order.” He destroyed himself by eating and exposed himself to punishment; he put others in order since they eat and unload [their sin] on him. Some Tannaїm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since anyhow he ate. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.

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

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

“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis.

Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession, removals, and animal tithe. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.