yose

MISHNAH: If someone dedicates his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple. What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 25:2): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat it without redemption since Temple property cannot exit without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical! He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here, because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened and they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Eleazer from the South asked before Rebbi Yose: Does our Mishnah follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, if he can be trusted for the Second, he can be trusted for the First? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. Here it is different since nobody fools around with deadly sins. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Just as Jews are not suspected in matters of the great heave, so Levites are not suspected in matters of the heave of tithes. Rebbi Hoshaia said, our Mishnah says so: The Levite can always be trusted.

Rebbi Eleazer from the South asked before Rebbi Yose: Does our Mishnah follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, if he can be trusted for the Second, he can be trusted for the First? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. Here it is different since nobody fools around with deadly sins. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Just as Jews are not suspected in matters of the great heave, so Levites are not suspected in matters of the heave of tithes. Rebbi Hoshaia said, our Mishnah says so: The Levite can always be trusted.

Here you say, one may not give to the poor less than this from the threshing floor. And there you say, one may not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than that. Rav Huna said, deduct one third for expenses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun gave to the bakers according to the statement of Rav Huna, but only for these measures.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not appoint two brothers as providers. Rebbi Yose removed one of two brothers. He came and said before them: There was not anything wrong with Mr. X, only one does not appoint two brothers as providers.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not appoint two brothers as providers. Rebbi Yose removed one of two brothers. He came and said before them: There was not anything wrong with Mr. X, only one does not appoint two brothers as providers.

Rebbi Yose went up to Kufra and wanted to appoint providers there, but they did not accept. He came and said before them: “Ben Bavai over the oakum.” If this one had been appointed over the wicks and therefore merited to be counted with the leaders of his generation, you who are being appointed over the lives of people, so much more. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when he inducted providers, let them carry the Torah, to indicate that every public office is given by the Torah (Prov. 8:15–16): “Through me, kings rule, through me, princes become princes.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba appointed magistrates.

“ Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

“ Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “ Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “ Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

Rebbi Huna said: Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not contradict Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of Shiqmana, should they not be free? Rebbi Yose said, explain it at a place where most people store it. Rebbi Yose the Great asked: Is not the entire world before him, should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of this place and be free?

Rebbi Huna said: Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not contradict Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of Shiqmana, should they not be free? Rebbi Yose said, explain it at a place where most people store it. Rebbi Yose the Great asked: Is not the entire world before him, should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of this place and be free?

It was stated: It may be eaten in strict mourning but not in impurity. What is the difference between strict mourning and impurity? Rav Naḥman said, impurity is frequent, strict mourning is infrequent. They made a decree for a frequent situation, they did not decree for an infrequent situation. Rebbi Yose said, they did not even make it similar to a doubt of ṭevel. Since for a doubt of ṭevel, whether Second Tithe was given in order, or maybe Second Tithe was not given in order, is that not forbidden for the strict mourner? But here, it is permitted to the mourner.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La: Why demay and not also what is certain, why a little bit, maybe the greater part? Did we not state: One does not bring the heave from the threshing floor to town, nor from the prairie to cultivated land, except in a place where [an animal] would drag it away; in that case he brings it and takes money from the tribe. He said to him, is it not a commandment to return a find? Rebbi Yose said, it is a commandment to return a find in small matters; it is not a commandment to return in large matters, except if it is certain; it is not a commandment to return demay since we have stated: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road”. So far, if he had no money in hand. If he had money in hand? Rebbi Neḥumai, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, my father had money in a double sack and he did not redeem. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba holds with Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Immi.

It was stated: “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 tithes 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 marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did the rabbi 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 Second 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: “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 tithes 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 marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did the rabbi 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 Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything, if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

May one determine the Second in place of the First? His sharecropper brought fruits to Rebbi Yose ben Shaul. He said to him, go and fix a place for the Second. He returned, and he told him, go and fix a place for the First. Should he not worry that maybe the Second was fixed at a place reserved for the First? This means that it is permitted to determine the Second in place of the First.

Rebbi Lazar said, they stated the Mishnah only for him who buys from a Gentile, but for him who buys from a Jew it is demay. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, whether one buys from a Jew or from a Gentile it is demay. Rebbi Eleazar holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of the Gentiles. Rebbi Joḥanan holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews. But even if Rebbi Eleazar agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews, Rebbi Eleazar is anxious about a minority. Like that fortification, if for one day it got supplies from a forbidden source, that day will become proof for all days. Rebbi Yose asked: If that is so, a prospective proselyte who comes to convert should not be accepted; I say he is from Ammon and Moab, and one proselyte would become proof for all proselytes. Hence, Rebbi Eleazar must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Gentiles and Rebbi Joḥanan must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: bulbs (onions) sold in Cesarea are forbidden because most of them come from King’s Mountain. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the white ones, but the rabbis of Cesarea say, the red ones.

Rebbi Yose of Kefar Dan in the name of Rebbi from Meadiah, the kinds forbidden in Beth Shean: Nigella, sesame, mustard, garlic, bulbs, black peas, commercial onions, local ones that are sold by weight, Egyptian beans bound with bast, mint bundled separately, carrot always, leeks from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Zeïra said, from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah the forbidden ones outnumber the permitted ones, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost the permitted ones outnumber the forbidden ones. In the matter of aftergrowth, from New Year’s Day to Ḥanukkah prohibition of aftergrowth, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost permission of aftergrowth, from Pentecost to New Year’s Day questionable. Zucchini, squash, water melon, apple melon, wine, oil, Ephesian dates, somebody also says lupines. Bread always requires hallah. These are Sabbatical in a Sabbatical year. In the other years of the cycle? Rebbi Jonah said, demay; Rebbi Yose said, certain. They have no disagreement over tithes; Rebbi Jonah said demay for him who buys from a person making house calls, Rebbi Yose said certain for him who bought from the garden.

Rebbi Yose of Kefar Dan in the name of Rebbi from Meadiah, the kinds forbidden in Beth Shean: Nigella, sesame, mustard, garlic, bulbs, black peas, commercial onions, local ones that are sold by weight, Egyptian beans bound with bast, mint bundled separately, carrot always, leeks from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Zeïra said, from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah the forbidden ones outnumber the permitted ones, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost the permitted ones outnumber the forbidden ones. In the matter of aftergrowth, from New Year’s Day to Ḥanukkah prohibition of aftergrowth, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost permission of aftergrowth, from Pentecost to New Year’s Day questionable. Zucchini, squash, water melon, apple melon, wine, oil, Ephesian dates, somebody also says lupines. Bread always requires hallah. These are Sabbatical in a Sabbatical year. In the other years of the cycle? Rebbi Jonah said, demay; Rebbi Yose said, certain. They have no disagreement over tithes; Rebbi Jonah said demay for him who buys from a person making house calls, Rebbi Yose said certain for him who bought from the garden.

Rebbi Yose of Kefar Dan in the name of Rebbi from Meadiah, the kinds forbidden in Beth Shean: Nigella, sesame, mustard, garlic, bulbs, black peas, commercial onions, local ones that are sold by weight, Egyptian beans bound with bast, mint bundled separately, carrot always, leeks from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Zeïra said, from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah the forbidden ones outnumber the permitted ones, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost the permitted ones outnumber the forbidden ones. In the matter of aftergrowth, from New Year’s Day to Ḥanukkah prohibition of aftergrowth, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost permission of aftergrowth, from Pentecost to New Year’s Day questionable. Zucchini, squash, water melon, apple melon, wine, oil, Ephesian dates, somebody also says lupines. Bread always requires hallah. These are Sabbatical in a Sabbatical year. In the other years of the cycle? Rebbi Jonah said, demay; Rebbi Yose said, certain. They have no disagreement over tithes; Rebbi Jonah said demay for him who buys from a person making house calls, Rebbi Yose said certain for him who bought from the garden.

It was stated: The rice in the sands of Antiochia is permitted in its place. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose permitted it as far as Kdvn. Rebbi Jonah asked: This distance in every direction?

A person brought a back-pack of leeks to Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi said, after its place of production and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. This means for back packs, but for animal loads everybody agrees after its place of production. If its place of production and of current placement are free but he is going to transport it through forbidden territory, that forbidden territory is as if he did not traverse it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, between Rebbi and his colleague, practice follows Rebbi. But Rebbi Jonah said, even Rebbi with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, what do you want from Rebbi Joḥanan! Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is of their words. Some want to say, the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rebbi and they form a majority against Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

By the first statement he invalidated the second. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspect to eat or to serve to others? He should not go, defile his body and come to defile pure food. It does not disagree even with Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspect to eat but not to serve to others. There one speaks about purity but here about tithes. “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes.”

By the first statement he invalidated the second. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspect to eat or to serve to others? He should not go, defile his body and come to defile pure food. It does not disagree even with Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspect to eat but not to serve to others. There one speaks about purity but here about tithes. “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes.”

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain merchant. Rebbi Yose objected, does not the Mishnah disagree? “The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example commissioners and grain merchants.” Hence, there must be others! Rebbi Yose said, this is not what Rebbi Eleazar referred to, but the following, as we have stated: “When is this statement operative, if he sells in his bakeshop or at the door of his bakeshop. But if he was selling in the bakery or in his bakeshop adjacent to the bakery, he must give all tithes on it.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they only permitted to the commissioned grain merchant to sell demay. Which (statement of) Rebbi Meïr? The one we have stated next: “Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually he measured wholesale and he measured retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Something which usually is measured wholesale and he measured it retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” And so the bakery is retail but the bakeshop is wholesale, there the wholesale is adjunct to the retail.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain merchant. Rebbi Yose objected, does not the Mishnah disagree? “The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example commissioners and grain merchants.” Hence, there must be others! Rebbi Yose said, this is not what Rebbi Eleazar referred to, but the following, as we have stated: “When is this statement operative, if he sells in his bakeshop or at the door of his bakeshop. But if he was selling in the bakery or in his bakeshop adjacent to the bakery, he must give all tithes on it.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they only permitted to the commissioned grain merchant to sell demay. Which (statement of) Rebbi Meïr? The one we have stated next: “Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually he measured wholesale and he measured retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Something which usually is measured wholesale and he measured it retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” And so the bakery is retail but the bakeshop is wholesale, there the wholesale is adjunct to the retail.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually is sold retail and he sold wholesale, the wholesale is adjunct to the retail; something which usually is sold wholesale and he sold retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale. What is wholesale? For dry produce, three qab, for liquids, the value of one denar. Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, all these if sold en bloc are free.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe is on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer. Where do we stand? If in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If in wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he says it is of his own harvest. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say it is not his own harvest, if he says in my opinion it was brought in order, even so they tell him that it is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe be on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.”

It was stated: “One has to declare.” In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, it is understood that the Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor; even if he informs him, what does he gain? Because of one who does not put in order?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain wholesaler. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is according to everybody; there is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. But does this not disagree with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that as soon as a person abandons anything of his property, it is legally abandoned as soon as it leaves his power. There is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose says that nothing may leave the power of its owners except if it is taken up; otherwise it was not legally abandoned. There is a difference here, because the one who abandons abandons wholesale, and the one who takes it up, takes up only retail quantities.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain wholesaler. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is according to everybody; there is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. But does this not disagree with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that as soon as a person abandons anything of his property, it is legally abandoned as soon as it leaves his power. There is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose says that nothing may leave the power of its owners except if it is taken up; otherwise it was not legally abandoned. There is a difference here, because the one who abandons abandons wholesale, and the one who takes it up, takes up only retail quantities.

MISHNAH: He who finds produce on the road and takes it to eat it, but then changed his mind to store it, should not store it until he tithed it. If from the start he took it up only so that it should not be spoiled, he is free. Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demay, he may not send to a friend as demay. Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.

“Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demay, he may not send to a friend as demay” Retail quantities which one is not permitted to sell as demay, one may not send to a friend as demay. Wholesale quantities which one is permitted to sell as demay, one may send to a friend as demay. “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce,” be it retail or wholesale quantities, but he forbids retail quantities that are demay.

This is a baraita: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

This is a baraita: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

This is a baraita: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abin in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Simeon said, only for one box. If he handed over two boxes, one of them is demay and one is certain if they are still in existence; but if the first one was consumed, the second one is demay. If a hundred people took from him 100 seah at one time, each one puts his produce in order as demay. If they gave it all to one person, it should be considered as certain. If one person took many seot together, the first one is demay, the rest certain. If he then gave the rest to a hundred people, it should be considered as certain. Did we not state in the name of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: “They made the produce of this Jew like the produce of that Samaritan, demay.” That again is the same; Rebbi Simeon said, only for one box.

MISHNAH: He who gives to the innkeeper’s wife, tithes what he gives her and what he takes from her because she is suspected to switch. Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest; he tithes only what he receives from her.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

“In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated the heave of the tithe and it was burned, he asks the seller and eats on his information.” Did Rebbi Zeïra not say that a similar case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur? Rebbi Avin said, this question does not compare to the first question. There it was, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you yesterday and I saw a multitude with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? But here, because I suspected you, I put them in order but they went up in fire. Were they put in order? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of dema‘ is on him and he will tell the truth.

“If somebody brought out Second Tithe from his house to somebody and said: ‘It is redeemed,’ he is trustworthy; ‘redeem for me and yourself,’ he is not trustworthy.” The baraita is Rebbi Eliezer’s, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

It was stated: “If somebody entered a town, found there groups of people, and asked, who is trustworthy here, who tithes here? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, and the others told him that he was trustworthy, that one is trustworthy. If they told him in the person’s presence that he was not trustworthy, he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy.” Rebbi Jonah said, if that somebody was from that town, the group must be of ḥaverim, if he is a stranger, the group may be composed of amē haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose, you say that ḥaverim are not trustworthy in his presence?

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

If one gives tithe and after that heave, one has preceded. First heave and after that tithe, might he not give too little tithe or add to his tithe? As we have stated, he who gives too little tithe, his tithes are in order but his produce is damaged, if he gives too much tithe, his tithes are damaged but his produce is in order. Rebbi Yose said, he relies on a stipulation by the Court. What is the stipulation by the Court? As far as one’s mind might err.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They permitted for demay following Rebbi Jehudah, since “Rebbi Jehudah says, when is that? If the gift is large. But if the gift is small, he tithes from each single one.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria. For Syria, we hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai descended into Homs. The family Astor asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Zeïra asked Rebbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose. Also from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them.

So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria. For Syria, we hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai descended into Homs. The family Astor asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Zeïra asked Rebbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose. Also from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? 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 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 and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? 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 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 and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? 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 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 and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his. If he dies, his sons have no right to the tithes. ‘For me and my sons, for me and my heirs,’ his sons have the tithes, his heirs have the tithes.” Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom asked before Rebbi Yose: So far only for heirs whose claim is from the Torah? Even for heirs whose claim is not from the Torah!

“If a Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

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

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

Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe.” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent; go and buy for yourself, they are his property. But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rebbi Jehudah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights, Rebbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece, Rebbi Jehudah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rebbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split.

Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe.” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent; go and buy for yourself, they are his property. But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rebbi Jehudah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights, Rebbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece, Rebbi Jehudah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rebbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split.

Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe.” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent; go and buy for yourself, they are his property. But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rebbi Jehudah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights, Rebbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece, Rebbi Jehudah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rebbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split.

Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe.” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent; go and buy for yourself, they are his property. But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rebbi Jehudah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights, Rebbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece, Rebbi Jehudah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rebbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation.

The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Isaac said: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah were guests of a private person. Evil rumors told the latter, watch out, they are suspecting you! He sat near them and was watching them. They pretended to throw food against each other and in that way were putting the food in order. Does he not desire their satisfaction? He does, but he does not want to be suspected.

Where are we at? If he says it beforehand, the drink is mixed. If he says, when I shall have drunk, before that he drank ṭevel. What we are dealing with is that he says beforehand: When I shall have drunk. But does he then not move impure heave on the Sabbath? Rebbi Eleazar said, he leaves some profane, as what we have stated there: “One moves pure heave with impure one and with profane food.” But that does not compare. There, the impure is for the needs of the pure, but here the profane is for the needs of the impure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when he sets down the cup it will be holy.

There, we have stated: “Is somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Is our Mishnah not following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

There, we have stated: “Is somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Is our Mishnah not following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

MISHNAH: A worker who does not believe his employer takes one dried fig and says: This one and the next nine shall be tithe for ninety that I shall eat. This one is made heave of the tithe for them. The Second Tithe is at the end and it is redeemed by a coin. He saves one fig. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he should not save because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer. But Rebbi Yose said, he should not save because that is a stipulation of the Court.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”