tithe

MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

It is obvious that a slave may accept a gift by one third party to another, by a third party to his master, [but] not from his master to himself. From a third party to himself is in dispute between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. If one said: Here [I am giving] you this money on condition that your master have no power over it, the slave acquired it and with him his master, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the slave acquired it [but not] his master. What is the problem? From his master to a third party. Since the slave may receive from a third party for his master, may he receive from his master for a third party? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his slave, his son, or his agent.” Does this not mean that the slave is able to transfer rights from his master to a third party? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it for a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you have to explain if for a Canaanite slave; explain it that he said, open [the gate] for her and she will come by herself, as we have stated: “If he led her, drew her to himself, called her and she followed him, he is responsible as a borrower.” Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his underage 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 is obvious that a slave may accept a gift by one third party to another, by a third party to his master, [but] not from his master to himself. From a third party to himself is in dispute between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. If one said: Here [I am giving] you this money on condition that your master have no power over it, the slave acquired it and with him his master, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the slave acquired it [but not] his master. What is the problem? From his master to a third party. Since the slave may receive from a third party for his master, may he receive from his master for a third party? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his slave, his son, or his agent.” Does this not mean that the slave is able to transfer rights from his master to a third party? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it for a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you have to explain if for a Canaanite slave; explain it that he said, open [the gate] for her and she will come by herself, as we have stated: “If he led her, drew her to himself, called her and she followed him, he is responsible as a borrower.” Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his underage 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!

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

HALAKHAH: “If anything is given instead of money,” etc. There, we have stated: “This is the principle: All movables acquire one another.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, we have stated only: “If anything is given instead of money,” anything that needs estimation. It turns out that Rebbi Abba follows Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar his own opinion, as we have stated there: “Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe, but if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they exchanged kid goats against rams and rams against kid goats. But if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, that was [the recipient’s] part from the first moment. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they exchanged kid goats against kid goats and rams against rams, they are buyers. But we have stated there: “The buyer and the recipient of a gift are free from animal tithe. Brothers having common property who are obligated for agio are free from animal tithe.” When they split and then joined again. “But if they are obligated for animal tithe they are free from agio.” If they never split.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

MISHNAH: If somebody uses his portion either from most holy or simply holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage, she is not preliminarily married. From Second Tithe there is no preliminary marriage whether unintentionally or intentionally, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, intentionally he performed preliminary marriage, unintentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage. From Temple property, intentionally he performed preliminary marriage, unintentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally he performed preliminary marriage, intentionally he did not perform preliminary marriage.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Meïr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he becomes betrothed while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Meïr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he becomes betrothed while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

There, we have stated: “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay.”

It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If [a priest] preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If [a priest] preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If [a priest] preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

It was stated: “Concerning all of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If [a priest] preliminarily marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, she is not married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did you hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything; if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

When Rebbi Meïr expired, Rebbi Jehudah decided and said, Rebbi Meïr’s students shall not enter here. Symmachos squeezed by and entered. He said, “Most holy sacrifices for preliminary marriage,” how could a woman enter the Temple courtyard? He said to him, if he contracts preliminary marriage through an agent. By what does he contract preliminary marriage? Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the goodwill created. Or we might say that they do not disagree. When Rebbi Eleazar said, by its body, [he meant] by the expected goodwill from it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One may contract preliminary marriage with a peruṭah from Second Tithe.

“With Second Tithe.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in one case he did not intend, in one case she did not intend. Rebbi Jonah said, the sanctified he did not intend, Second Tithe she did not intend. Rebbi Abin said, the sanctified neither he nor she did intend; Second tithe he did intend but she did not.

“With Second Tithe.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in one case he did not intend, in one case she did not intend. Rebbi Jonah said, the sanctified he did not intend, Second Tithe she did not intend. Rebbi Abin said, the sanctified neither he nor she did intend; Second tithe he did intend but she did not.

“With Second Tithe.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in one case he did not intend, in one case she did not intend. Rebbi Jonah said, the sanctified he did not intend, Second Tithe she did not intend. Rebbi Abin said, the sanctified neither he nor she did intend; Second tithe he did intend but she did not.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

HALAKHAH: “By how much could a tertradrachma be deficient,” etc. It was stated: “More than that he spends it for its worth, a tetradrachma up to a šeqel, a denar up to a quarter [šeqel]. If it is less than this even by an assarius, he may not spend it. If it was circulating as a blank for a tetradrachma or as a šeqel coin, as a blank for a šeqel or as a tetradrachma coin, he only has the shape of the coin. He should give it neither to a person who condemns property nor to a tax assessor since they defraud people, but he drills a hole into it and hangs it on his son’s neck. When has this been said? About tetradrachmas and denars. But gold denars and silver coins one may spend according to their value. Just as one spends it for profane things one may spend it for Second Tithe provided one does not plan it.”

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly’. Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah. There are five peruṭot: Confession is about one peruṭah; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media. There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe, or heave of the tithe of demay, or ḥallah, or first fruits, adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year or his Second Tithe, adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly’. Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah. There are five peruṭot: Confession is about one peruṭah; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media. There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe, or heave of the tithe of demay, or ḥallah, or first fruits, adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year or his Second Tithe, adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly’. Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah. There are five peruṭot: Confession is about one peruṭah; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media. There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe, or heave of the tithe of demay, or ḥallah, or first fruits, adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year or his Second Tithe, adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly’. Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah. There are five peruṭot: Confession is about one peruṭah; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media. There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe, or heave of the tithe of demay, or ḥallah, or first fruits, adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year or his Second Tithe, adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth.

HALAKHAH: “How much time does one have to return it,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, to add it for Jerusalem, he adds it as good coin. If he uses it to redeem in the countryside, he redeems with the underweight coin. But did we not state: “He chooses the better one of the two and exchanges it for them”? Why can he not take the worse [coin] and treat it [as a good one]. He said, there is a difference here because it already was shown to be Second Tithe.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

MISHNAH: If somebody hires workers to work with him in his fourth-year plantation, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to redeem it and feed them. If his fig cakes were dislodged or his amphoras opened, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to tithe and feed them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires workers to work,” etc. Anything which is of a kind apt to be under the rules of tithing but another prohibition caused it [to be forbidden to eat], if one hired [a worker] without mentioning it, he has to redeem and feed, tithe and feed. If [the worker] contracted for it, he eats. But if it is of a kind exempt from the rules of tithing but another prohibition caused it [to be forbidden to eat], if one hired [a worker] without mentioning it, that one cannot eat; if he contracted for it, he eats.

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. It was stated: “One who contracts with another for a field tithes and delivers to him, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, both for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, only for the same kind and for the same field he lifts heave and delivers to him. But from another field or another kind he does (not) tithe and deliver to him.”

“If one of them recognized his stones, he takes them, and they are debited to his account.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, this means that the hand rules on one side. There, we have stated: “A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101.” Rebbi Yose said, if you say that he takes 100, I would say that only profane came to his hand and the other remains ṭevel. So he takes 101 in order to separate heave and heave of the tithe from the ṭevel.

“If one of them recognized his stones, he takes them, and they are debited to his account.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, this means that the hand rules on one side. There, we have stated: “A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101.” Rebbi Yose said, if you say that he takes 100, I would say that only profane came to his hand and the other remains ṭevel. So he takes 101 in order to separate heave and heave of the tithe from the ṭevel.

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three [judges], the intercalation of a year by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal, and it says, and you shall slay the animal. The bull to be stoned [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

“Abba Shaul says, two subdivisions were there, the lower and the upper, whose sanctification was not complete. The lower one was dedicated with a full ceremony, but the upper one only when they came from the diaspora, without a king and without Urim and Tummim. Therefore, in the lower one the vulgar eat family sacrifices and Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices but not Second Tithe. In the upper one, the vulgar eat family sacrifices but not Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices and Second Tithe. Why did they not sanctify it? Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”

“Abba Shaul says, two subdivisions were there, the lower and the upper, whose sanctification was not complete. The lower one was dedicated with a full ceremony, but the upper one only when they came from the diaspora, without a king and without Urim and Tummim. Therefore, in the lower one the vulgar eat family sacrifices and Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices but not Second Tithe. In the upper one, the vulgar eat family sacrifices but not Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices and Second Tithe. Why did they not sanctify it? Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”

“Abba Shaul says, two subdivisions were there, the lower and the upper, whose sanctification was not complete. The lower one was dedicated with a full ceremony, but the upper one only when they came from the diaspora, without a king and without Urim and Tummim. Therefore, in the lower one the vulgar eat family sacrifices and Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices but not Second Tithe. In the upper one, the vulgar eat family sacrifices but not Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices and Second Tithe. Why did they not sanctify it? Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”

“Abba Shaul says, two subdivisions were there, the lower and the upper, whose sanctification was not complete. The lower one was dedicated with a full ceremony, but the upper one only when they came from the diaspora, without a king and without Urim and Tummim. Therefore, in the lower one the vulgar eat family sacrifices and Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices but not Second Tithe. In the upper one, the vulgar eat family sacrifices but not Second Tithe; Fellows eat there family sacrifices and Second Tithe. Why did they not sanctify it? Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Joshua, and Rabban Gamliel travelled to Rome. They came to a place where they found children making stone heaps and saying as follows: What they do in the Land of Israel is to say, this is heave, this is tithe. They said, it is clear that Jews live here. They entered a place and were received at a house. They sat down to eat. It happened that no dish was brought to them unless it was brought [first] to a certain bedroom. They became afraid that perhaps they were eating offerings to the dead. They asked him, why is it that you bring no dish before us unless you brought it first to that bedroom? He told them, I have an old father who vowed not to leave that bedroom until he might see the Sages of Israel. They told him, go and tell him to come out because they are here. He came out; they asked him, what is your problem? He told them, pray for my son because he is sterile. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. He told them, bring me linseed; they brought him linseed. It appeared to them as if he was sowing it on a table. It appeared as if he was watering it; it appeared to grow; it appeared that he was plucking out of it, until there appeared a woman with braided hair. He told her, undo what you did. She answered, I shall not undo. He told her, then I shall make you known. She said, I cannot, because they were thrown into the sea. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who disgorged them. Then they prayed for him and he had the merit of raising Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. They said, if we came here only to bring the just person to the world, it would have been enough.

MISHNAH: When is he guilty? From the moment he eats a fourfold portion of meat and drinks half a log of wine. Rebbi Yose says, a mina of meat and a log of wine. If he ate in a company of obligation, or at the lengthening of a month, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem, or ate torn or carcass meat, abominations and crawling things, i. e., if he ate anything which either is an obligation or anything forbidden, or ate any food but not meat, or drank any drink but not wine, he does not turn into a deviant and rebellious son unless he ate meat and drank wine, since it is said: gorging and drinking to excess. Even if it is not proof, there is a hint in what is said: Do not be among those who drink wine excessively, nor with those who are gorging themselves on meat.

“If he ate in a company of obligation, or at the lengthening of a month, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem.” They would discipline him, but he does not listen to their voice. This excludes one who listens to the voice of his Father in Heaven.

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning, I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin.

And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning, I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a pound of gold,” etc. “Eight of gold I have in the wallet and one finds there eight gold denarii; or fifty tetradrachmas and one finds 200 denar; or 200 denar and one finds 50 tetradrachmas; these are profane. Eight gold denarii I have in the wallet and one finds fifty tetradrachmas; or 200 denar and one finds 50 tetradrachmas, these are Second [Tithe].” “ ‘You are holding for me a pound of gold,’ ‘I am holding for you only a pound of silver;’ he is not liable. ‘You are holding for me a gold denar,’ ‘I am holding for you only a silver denar.’” Rebbi Jacob bar Abinna said, earlier, we were saying, “a gold denar” is a detail; “gold denarii” are not detail. If he had said, “a gold denar, a gold coin” it would have been correct. It was found stated, “a gold coin of a denar,” he is not liable.

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

If he worked for him half a day in prohibition and half a day in permission. If he was selling profane [food] and Second Tithe together, [the buyer] has the choice of treating as profane what he chooses and as Second Tithe what he chooses. Is this the same here? Let us hear from the following. If somebody hires a worker to bring wine to a sick person; if he delivered [the employer] has to pay him, otherwise he does not have to pay him. But if he told him, wine for a sick person from place X, an apple for a sick person from place X, whether or not he delivered he has to pay him, for he pays the wages of his feet. And here, does he not pay the wages of his feet?

If he worked for him half a day in prohibition and half a day in permission. If he was selling profane [food] and Second Tithe together, [the buyer] has the choice of treating as profane what he chooses and as Second Tithe what he chooses. Is this the same here? Let us hear from the following. If somebody hires a worker to bring wine to a sick person; if he delivered [the employer] has to pay him, otherwise he does not have to pay him. But if he told him, wine for a sick person from place X, an apple for a sick person from place X, whether or not he delivered he has to pay him, for he pays the wages of his feet. And here, does he not pay the wages of his feet?

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food, or who came into the Temple when impure. One who eats fat, or blood, or leftover, or piggul, or impure [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside, or one who eats leavened matter on Passover. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement, and one who compounds the oil, or compounds the incense, and who rubs with the anointing oil, and one who eats carcass or torn meat, abominations and crawling things. If one ate ṭevel or first tithe from which heave was not taken, or second tithe or dedicated food which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant] is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food, or who came into the Temple when impure. One who eats fat, or blood, or leftover, or piggul, or impure [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside, or one who eats leavened matter on Passover. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement, and one who compounds the oil, or compounds the incense, and who rubs with the anointing oil, and one who eats carcass or torn meat, abominations and crawling things. If one ate ṭevel or first tithe from which heave was not taken, or second tithe or dedicated food which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant] is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.

MISHNAH: One who eats First Fruits before he recited over them, or most holy sacrifices outside the Temple enclosure, or simple sacrifices or Second Tithe outside of the wall. One who breaks a bone of a pure Passover sacrifice is flogged 40 [lashes]. But one who leaves over of the pure or breaks a bone of the impure is not flogged 40 [lashes].

Raba said : Like that of Rab Hosha'ya who stated : A man should act cunningly with his produce, and store it together with the chaff, so that his cattle may eat of it and it become exempt from the tithe.

Rabbah b. Bar Hannah also stated that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Judah b. R. El'ai : Come and see that the later generations are not like the former generations. The former generations used to bring their fruits home by way of the kitchen-garden in order to make them liable to the tithe ; whereas the later generations bring their fruits home by way of the roof, or courts, or enclosures in order to exempt them from the tithe. For R. Jannai has said : Produce is not subject to the tithe until it sees the face of the house ; as it is said, "I have put away the hallowed things out of my house" (Deut. xxvi. 13).

Rabbah b. Bar Hannah also stated that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Judah b. R. El'ai : Come and see that the later generations are not like the former generations. The former generations used to bring their fruits home by way of the kitchen-garden in order to make them liable to the tithe ; whereas the later generations bring their fruits home by way of the roof, or courts, or enclosures in order to exempt them from the tithe. For R. Jannai has said : Produce is not subject to the tithe until it sees the face of the house ; as it is said, "I have put away the hallowed things out of my house" (Deut. xxvi. 13).

Rabbah b. Bar Hannah also stated that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Judah b. R. El'ai : Come and see that the later generations are not like the former generations. The former generations used to bring their fruits home by way of the kitchen-garden in order to make them liable to the tithe ; whereas the later generations bring their fruits home by way of the roof, or courts, or enclosures in order to exempt them from the tithe. For R. Jannai has said : Produce is not subject to the tithe until it sees the face of the house ; as it is said, "I have put away the hallowed things out of my house" (Deut. xxvi. 13).

R. Johanan said : Even [if it see] a fixed court [it is subject to the tithe] ; as it is said, "That they may eat within thy gates and be satisfied" (ibid. v. 12).

He speaks according to the view of R. 'Akiba ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Eliezer says : In the case of the caper-bush, we give tithe of the young shoots and the berries and buds ; R. 'Akiba says : We only give tithe of the berries because they are fruit.

He speaks according to the view of R. 'Akiba ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Eliezer says : In the case of the caper-bush, we give tithe of the young shoots and the berries and buds ; R. 'Akiba says : We only give tithe of the berries because they are fruit.

Then let him say : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba outside the Land; for everyone who takes the lenient view within the Land, the Halakah is in accord with him outside the Land ! If he had stated that, I might have said : This applies to the tithe of trees which within the Land is a Rabbinical ordinance ; but with regard to 'Orlah, which within the Land is ordained by the Torah, I must suppose that likewise outside the Land we must apply it ! Therefore he informs us.

The portion of the Sotah, the declaration concerning the tithe, the Shema', Tefillah and the Grace after meals! [Nevertheless Rab's statement] was necessary ; for it might have entered thy mind to say that this only applies when one utters the benediction in a non-holy language exactly as the Rabbis ordained it in the holy tongue ; but should he not say it in the non-holy language exactly as the Rabbis ordained it in the holy tongue, I am to declare that he has not [complied]. Therefore he informs us [that the benediction is valid even when the wording does not exactly conform to the Hebrew original].

Nay, everybody agrees that nobelot without further qualification means "Fruit scorched by the sun"; where they differ is with reference to nobelot temarah. For there is a Mishnaic teaching: Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently are: Shitin, Rimin, 'Uzradin, Benot Shuah, Benot Shikmah, Gofnin, Nispah and Nobelot Temarah.

It is quite right according to him who says [it means] "Fruit scorched by the sun," that is what he teaches, viz. "Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently" — it is the doubt that exempts them [from the tithe], but if there is certainty, then they are subject. But according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how can they be subject [to the tithe] in the case of certainty, since they are public property? With what are we here dealing?

It is quite right according to him who says [it means] "Fruit scorched by the sun," that is what he teaches, viz. "Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently" — it is the doubt that exempts them [from the tithe], but if there is certainty, then they are subject. But according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how can they be subject [to the tithe] in the case of certainty, since they are public property? With what are we here dealing?

It is quite right according to him who says [it means] "Fruit scorched by the sun," that is what he teaches, viz. "Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently" — it is the doubt that exempts them [from the tithe], but if there is certainty, then they are subject. But according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how can they be subject [to the tithe] in the case of certainty, since they are public property? With what are we here dealing?

With a case where he has arranged them for storage; for R. Isaac stated that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob : Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce of the corner of the field, if he arranged them for storage, they become subject to the tithe.

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten Iess than the size of an olive, and the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. Women, slaves and minors may not be included. How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to be included for Zimmun ? The size of an olive. R. Judah says : The size of an egg.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten Iess than the size of an olive, and the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. Women, slaves and minors may not be included. How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to be included for Zimmun ? The size of an olive. R. Judah says : The size of an egg.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

Rab Pappa said to Abbai : In that case, even if [the Levite] anticipated [and separated his tithe] from the corn-heap, it would likewise [be exempt from the great Terumah] ! He replied : To meet thy objection the Scriptures state,

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed. This is evident ! With what are we here dealing ? For instance, if he paid its value but not the additional fifth ; hence he informs us that [not having paid] the additional fifth does not prevent him [from being included for Zimmun].

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.