yose

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe of demay.” Come and see, since certain heave of the tithe may be taken from pure for impure, heave of the tithe of demay not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, we deal with a doubt of Great Heave when it is not sure whether Great Heave was taken or not. As you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it;” he asserts that from demay for demay it is the same. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana said, there he wants to eat it, here he wants to burn it.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

Even Rebbi Yose agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone’s body.

If this is the case, also movables? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: (Deut. 18:1) “The gifts to the Eternal and His inheritance they shall eat.” Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Aqiba follows his own opinion since “Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity”. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say that he changed his method; there is a difference because a person usually does not make his animal’s fodder impure.

Why did they not decree about vicia? On their shoes it came out with them from Alexandria. When did they decree about black vetch? Rebbi Yose says, in a famine; Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi: In David’s time. They said, both are the same.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.

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

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘orlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Ismael: Anything not subject to ‘orlah is not subject to the fourth year. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Until it was subject to ‘orlah for three years? Rebbi Jonah said, he asked about the principle of ‘orlah and no principle of ‘orlah is less than three years. Rebbi Yose said, he asked about the principle of the fourth year; anything not having three years is not subject to ‘orlah and not subject to the fourth year.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

Does Rebbi Yose follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? He might even hold with Rebbi! ‘Orlah depends on one’s intention, tithes do not depend on his intention.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Joshia brought saplings from outside the Land in their earth and planted them in the Land. Rebbi Jona, to gain the years. Rebbi Yose, to gain the fourth year.

Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqola in the name of Ḥizqia: If somebody plants in a flower pot without a hole, it is subject to ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, because the roots break through it. Rebbi Jonah uses the expression: Clay vessels withstand roots. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he planted a gourd in it, since it is as if there were a hole for trees, is it like as if with a hole for vegetables?

Rebbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi Tryphon we throw it on its width.

Rebbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi Tryphon we throw it on its width.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

MISHNAH: If a sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim became mixed with [other] saplings, one should not harvest. If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred on condition that he did not have the intention to harvest. Rebbi Yose says, he may intend to harvest; it will be lifted by one in two hundred.

HALAKHAH: “A sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.

HALAKHAH: “A sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.

But did we not state: “One should not harvest;” after the fact. And we have stated: “If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the first case if he harvested three; in the second case if he harvested all of them.

“Rebbi Yose says, he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? People are always thinning vines.

“Rebbi Yose says, he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? People are always thinning vines.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

MISHNAH: Leaves, shoots, vine sap, and the flower are permitted for ‘orlah, the Fourth Year, and a nazir, but forbidden from a pagan sacred grove. Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is forbidden to use ‘orlah sap as curd. Rebbi Joshua said, I heard explicitly that one is permitted to use sap of leaves and sap of roots as curd. But the sap of unripe figs is forbidden because that is a fruit. Anqoqlot, the grape skins, the grape seeds, and the afterwine made from them, pomegranate skins and their flowers, nut shells, and seeds are forbidden from ‘orlah, sacred groves, and for a nazir. They are permitted in the fourth year. Windfall is forbidden for all of these. Rebbi Yose said, one may plant an ‘orlah shoot but not an ‘orlah nut because the latter is a fruit. Also, one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah.

MISHNAH: Leaves, shoots, vine sap, and the flower are permitted for ‘orlah, the Fourth Year, and a nazir, but forbidden from a pagan sacred grove. Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is forbidden to use ‘orlah sap as curd. Rebbi Joshua said, I heard explicitly that one is permitted to use sap of leaves and sap of roots as curd. But the sap of unripe figs is forbidden because that is a fruit. Anqoqlot, the grape skins, the grape seeds, and the afterwine made from them, pomegranate skins and their flowers, nut shells, and seeds are forbidden from ‘orlah, sacred groves, and for a nazir. They are permitted in the fourth year. Windfall is forbidden for all of these. Rebbi Yose said, one may plant an ‘orlah shoot but not an ‘orlah nut because the latter is a fruit. Also, one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the nazir why a fruit? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! The word of Rebbi Isaac implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Isaac asked: Who stated “one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah”? Rebbi Yose!

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the nazir why a fruit? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! The word of Rebbi Isaac implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Isaac asked: Who stated “one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah”? Rebbi Yose!

“Anqoqlot and the grape skins.” Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis in the name of Rav: Grapes which went bad before they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even after they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is a stenographic expression: “Grapes becoming bad at a third.”

“Rebbi Yose said, one may not plant a shoot.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one transgressed and planted, it is permitted; if he transgressed and grafted it is forbidden.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not also state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state “ḥallah”? Should we not state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state: “Heave, heave of the tithe and heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Samuel: Demay does not need ḥallah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said to him, one takes its value from the tribe. He answered him, that is what Samuel said, one takes its value from the tribe. Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yose: One does not take its value from the tribe; tomorrow he will bring certain [ḥallah] and say it is demay in order to take its value from the tribe!

Rebbi Joḥanan asked Gamliel the Twin: Are you used to take ḥallah from demay? He answered him, did not Samuel, the brother of Rav Berekhia, say that from the moment they decreed demay, most people separate it in their houses? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a condition of the court that ḥallah be in the Northernmost part.

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift, no unrelated person may lift, and it does not push away the Sabbath. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

From where that they may be lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hilfai, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The House of Shammai made it as if swollen.

If heave groats fell into profane lentils and can be tasted, if he added profane lentils they become permitted. How much does he have to add? A disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. In the opinion of Rebbi, one says until he adds for all of them. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, one says until he adds corresponding to what fell in. If groats were cooked with profane lentils and cannot be tasted, if he added profane groats, this kind awakes its own to make it forbidden. But this should not be stronger than libation wine! As you say regarding libation wine, you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. Here you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. That means, if he added groats, the heave is permitted.

If heave groats fell into profane lentils and can be tasted, if he added profane lentils they become permitted. How much does he have to add? A disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. In the opinion of Rebbi, one says until he adds for all of them. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, one says until he adds corresponding to what fell in. If groats were cooked with profane lentils and cannot be tasted, if he added profane groats, this kind awakes its own to make it forbidden. But this should not be stronger than libation wine! As you say regarding libation wine, you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. Here you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. That means, if he added groats, the heave is permitted.

“ Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There is meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What means, he accepted that? Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina said, my father Rebbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rebbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: What do you say, there practice follows Rebbi Eliezer; does practice here follow Rebbi Eliezer? He said to him, for everything?

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rebbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, ‘orlah does not always apply.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

They asked at the House of Rebbi Yannai: Does a gourd which was cooked while connected to the ground create ṭevel for tithes? Levi asked, can it become impure as food? If it was cooked it is as if cut into pieces. The word of Samuel says that it becomes impure as food, as Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Samuel: Figs and raisins which shriveled on the tree may become impure as food and anybody who takes them down on the Sabbath is guilty of harvesting.

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? He said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, as it is written (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah means: “Why can he not bring? Because it was said (Deut. 26:2): ‘the beginning of the First Fruits of your land.’ ”

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

HALAKHAH: : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but: Why did they say “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes, say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one.” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: If one bought a single tree he did not acquire the ground, two he did not acquire the ground. From one he does not bring at all, from two he brings and does not make the declaration? Rebbi Eleazar said to him, you are asking a question to which the rabbis in assembly have no answer.

Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: “If he pronounced the benediction ‘Creator of the fruit of the soil’ on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.

“If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the First Fruits became impure, the baskets are given to the priests since it is said (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

MISHNAH: For the following one makes the declaration, one brings and makes the declaration between Pentecost and Tabernacles: From the Seven Kinds, from produce of the hills, from dates in the valleys, from oil olives, and from Transjordan. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not bring from Transjordan since it is not a Land flowing with milk and honey.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Sixteen mil in a circle around Sepphoris is the Land flowing with milk and honey. Rebbi Jonah said, if one measures as the crow flies, the outskirts of Beth Shean belong to it. If one measures as the crow flies, the valley of Genezareth belongs to it. One objected to Rebbi Jonah: (Ex. 3:17) “I said, I shall lift you from the deprivation of Egypt” (Ex. 3:8) “into a good and wide land, [to] a land flowing with milk and honey”! He said to them, which contains [stretches of] milk and honey.

“At 52, the death of the prophet Saul.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in the name of Rebbi Levi; Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi (Prov. 14:23): “From all toil there will be gain but from talk of lips only want.” Hannah, because she prayed too much, shortened Samuel’s life, since she said (1S. 1:22): “He shall dwell there forever.” But the “forever” of a Levite is only 50 years, as it is written (Num. 8:25): “At the age of 50 years he shall retire from the workforce.” But this one lived 52 years? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, two years until she weaned him.

There, we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare. Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.

There, we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare. Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.

“It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked a citron and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But are Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not from the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Šebaṭ of the second year and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the second tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state that the human having active or passive sex with a koy is guilty? He told him, it was stated: “In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals.”

Did we not state: (Lev. 19:32) “You shall rise and give respect.” Just as rising does not cost anything, so giving respect should not cost anything? There is a difference here since it is only once in a long time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya: Come and see how strong is the case of those who come to fulfill a commandment! For before an elder one does not have to stand but before those who come to fulfill a commandment one stands! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, those that stand up before a dead person do not stand up before the dead but before those who serve him in charity.

Did we not state: (Lev. 19:32) “You shall rise and give respect.” Just as rising does not cost anything, so giving respect should not cost anything? There is a difference here since it is only once in a long time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya: Come and see how strong is the case of those who come to fulfill a commandment! For before an elder one does not have to stand but before those who come to fulfill a commandment one stands! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, those that stand up before a dead person do not stand up before the dead but before those who serve him in charity.

Rebbi Yose stated: They did not put the pigeons on top of the baskets in order not to dirty them but one hangs them on the sides of the baskets.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said: Everybody agrees that one adorns First Fruits with produce of the Land since nobody errs to think that one may bring First Fruits from outside the Land. They differ about this, about Ammon and Moab. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds, one may adorn First Fruits with produce from Ammon and Moab. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds, one may not adorn First Fruits with produce from Ammon and Moab. Rebbi Mana said: Everybody agrees that one may not adorn First Fruits with produce of Ammon and Moab since people err to think that one may bring First Fruits from Ammon and Moab. About what do they differ? About outside the Land. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds, one may adorn First Fruits with produce from outside the Land. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds, one may not adorn First Fruits with produce from outside the Land..