ze

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.’”

Rebbi Zeïra said, the reason of the House of Shammai is that a ḥaver should never sell olives to anybody but one who tithes.

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

Rebbi Hoshaia had made a proviso for certain produce. One woman cooked vegetables she had forgotten to put in order. She came to Rebbi Hoshaia who sent Zavdi ben Levi to put it in order for him and for her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, would Zavdi ben Levi not have to give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on these vegetables? Rebbi Zeïra asked, where do we hold? If his proviso was meant for him and for others, he does not have to give him property rights on the vegetable. If his proviso was not meant for him and for others, he has to give him property rights on the vegetable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It was answered, Zavdi ben Levi did not give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on the vegetable.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is he not like somebody who makes repairs on the Sabbath? He said to him, because of his proviso. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of destruction of edibles? He said to him, he crumbles a small amount and eats. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of robbery? He said to him, the host desires the satisfaction of his guest.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is he not like somebody who makes repairs on the Sabbath? He said to him, because of his proviso. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of destruction of edibles? He said to him, he crumbles a small amount and eats. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of robbery? He said to him, the host desires the satisfaction of his guest.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is he not like somebody who makes repairs on the Sabbath? He said to him, because of his proviso. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of destruction of edibles? He said to him, he crumbles a small amount and eats. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of robbery? He said to him, the host desires the satisfaction of his guest.

There, we have stated: “If somebody puts aside produce … to serve for Second Tithe.” Does that Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Zeïra said, there they become spoiled retroactively, but here they become spoiled only starting from the moment of loss.

We have stated: “One may move both pure and impure heave.” Rebbi Zeïra said, it means that one is permitted to move ṭevel that has a condition on it on the Sabbath. What does he do? He thinks about a part of it and eats the rest.

“ If someone has a basket and wants to tithe it, he takes two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, corresponding to ten tithe and nine Second Tithe.” Why does he not say 19? Rebbi Zeïra said, the words of the Sages and their riddles. He who wants to bring a hundred figs in order into his house takes for ever single fig two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, 23 figs in all, four called ninth of a ninth.

It was stated: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out.” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

We have stated about this, “three or four qab,” hence two qab go by one in 24. “In truth;” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. And we stated about this, for example a qab or half a qab.Hence, two qab go by a quarter. Here you say, two qab by a quarter, and there you say, two qab by one in 24. Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna; one says, nine qab, the other says, eight qab.

That means that one may sow next to dry vines and “when they produce leaves again, the past is permitted and the future prohibited.” Like that of Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah who cut down his vines and told his sharecropper, go and sow! After he had sown, they started to grow leaves. He said to him, go and cut! After he had cut, they rotted; he said to him, go and sow close up. Rebbi Zeīra asked: Is that only for Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah, for he said it in full knowledge; what about common people who do not have full knowledge? He returned and said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said it only because of the bad appearance.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder: He makes it two by two cubits, but decreases continuously to an arbitrarily small distance. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if it is subdivided into garden beds, but if all is one bed, it does not apply. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: I may sow my field with fifty kinds, twenty-five here and twenty-five there; this is in two rows. If that is so, would it be permitted even between himself and his neighbor? Or in a dry spot? Then it parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi said, he starts with an area of bet rova‘ and narrows it down to three furrows of the ploughshare. Does Rebbi not accept that between grains one needs a bet rova‘? That is for a square field, here for a garden bed. Do the rabbis not recognize garden beds? Rebbi Yudan said, the minimal distance for Rebbi is the maximal distance for the rabbis.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, it is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own. Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav comes out like Rebbi Simeon; just as Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own; so Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own. But it cannot be explained following the Sages.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

“Grain and grain need a bet rova‘.” But only if it is not jailed on all four sides. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Does this mean that we say that in the ravine of Simonia one may sow only one kind?

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two) kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six.

How long does it have to be to jail? Rebbi Zeïra said, let us infer it from a vineyard. Just as you say in regard to a vineyard that there is no difference between length and separation, so here also there is no difference between length and separation. That is fine according to the opinion of Ḥizqiah; there eight and here also eight. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, with how much will it jail? If you say with eight, is there an argument a fortiori that a strip of melons among onions will jail only with twelve? But a melon strip, which you empowered among melon strips to save by a mere eight, will be jailed by eight, melon strips among onions, which you weakened to save only by twelve, certainly will be jailed only by eight. If you say that a melon strip among onions will be jailed only by twelve, then an argument a fortiori shows that a melon strip among melons should be jailed only by twelve.

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

Only if it is surrounded by a fence on all four sides? From what we have stated: “Between two vineyards,” that means even from one side only. Only if the fence encloses all of that side? Let us hear from the following that Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rav Mattanah: There is no tail for a large vineyard and no circumference for a small vineyard. There is no tail for a large vineyard because one does not need it. Neither a circumference for a small vineyard to forbid more outside than inside; inside eight and outside twelve. What is a small vineyard? Three parallel three. Hence, three parallel three parallel three, [the vineyard] has a circumference. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means that if he made laths along three vines then [the vineyard] has a circumference.

Only if it is surrounded by a fence on all four sides? From what we have stated: “Between two vineyards,” that means even from one side only. Only if the fence encloses all of that side? Let us hear from the following that Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rav Mattanah: There is no tail for a large vineyard and no circumference for a small vineyard. There is no tail for a large vineyard because one does not need it. Neither a circumference for a small vineyard to forbid more outside than inside; inside eight and outside twelve. What is a small vineyard? Three parallel three. Hence, three parallel three parallel three, [the vineyard] has a circumference. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means that if he made laths along three vines then [the vineyard] has a circumference.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Abun and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath!

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aḥai said, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own? There, he said that nobody can sanctify property that is not his own, but here, his and his neighbor’s property are counted together to forbid the ground in the middle. Rebbi Mana did not say so, but did not Rebbi Samuel say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; just as Rebbi Simeon said that nobody can sanctify property that is not his own, so he said that nobody can jail property that is not his own, but here, his and his neighbor’s property are counted together to forbid the ground in the middle.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the space of the trunks. Just as you say, eight except for the space of the trunks, so also four except for the space of the trunks.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they were more restrictive inside than outside. Rebbi Zeïra said, when I was still there, I explained it that inside eight [are required], outside sixteen: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and sanctifies, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

Rebbi Zeïra showed to the colleagues: Nine rows of seven each. Take away one next to another for the warp and one next to another for the woof. There remain 20 vines. Take away two from each side in one direction, one from each side in the other direction. There remain 10 vines. That is what we have stated: “Ten vines per bet seah”. It turns out that there are four times two parallel two and one protrudes as tail.

“When is this? In case they are planted four four or five five apart.” This supports Rebbi Zeïra, since Rebbi Eleazar said: Eight except for the place of the trunks. “If they were planted six six or seven seven apart”, that supports Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and “sanctifies”, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not “sanctify”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, our Mishnah speaks of one standing in a grain field while the wind carried the seeds into a vineyard. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: Was [the Mishnah] speaking about one standing in [a grain field] or even one standing [in a vineyard]? If you say in a grain field, then not in a vineyard. If you say even one standing [in a vineyard] there is no difference. Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If one was sowing and the wind carried the seeds behind him, this is permitted, since it happened by accident.” What are we dealing with? If he stands in the vineyard he is tending it, and you say it is permitted? But we must deal with the case of one standing in a grain field and the wind carried the seeds into a vineyard.

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

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

“Two gardens, one above the other, the lower one is made into a vineyard, the upper one is not made into a vineyard. One may sow the upper one until one reaches the airspace of ten.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the below? He said to him, because plants will bend into the airspace of the vineyard. “If the upper one is made into a vineyard but the lower one is not made into a vineyard, one may sow the lower one and the declivity until one reaches the roots of the vines.” Rebbi Yose said, one does not have here “the roots of the vines” but “below three [hand-breadths],” following that which was stated: “roots of madder that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”

HALAKHAH: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the place of the trunks? Explain that as eight cubits and a little more. And why has this not been stated? Are you not concurring with Rebbi Joḥanan that in all linear measurements stated by the Sages, “more than” means [more by] a hand-breadth? But what he added is little, therefore it was not stated.

HALAKHAH: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the place of the trunks? Explain that as eight cubits and a little more. And why has this not been stated? Are you not concurring with Rebbi Joḥanan that in all linear measurements stated by the Sages, “more than” means [more by] a hand-breadth? But what he added is little, therefore it was not stated.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah speaks of the space above the shoot. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that a vineyard has air space; a single vine has no air space. Since Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten, that means that even a single vine has air space.

What is the status of the intermediate spaces? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are forbidden and sanctify. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are forbidden and do not sanctify. What can you say? If it is a large vineyard, what about its dry spot, even where it is planted! If it is a small vineyard, it has no circumference. But we must deal with a large vineyard planted in the manner of a small one. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that a large vineyard planted eight by eight has no circumference. If you say that the inside is forbidden and sanctifies if it is planted 16 by 16, the outside not so much more?

It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This teaches us that one is not guilty unless he sows two kinds in the vineyard, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Jonathan said, even one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19) “in your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, to make it sinful even with one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Josia, “in your field do not sow kilaim”; why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, as a warning. If he was warned about “your field”, he is whipped, if he was warned about “your vineyard”, he is whipped. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits. What are we talking about? If he made a fence on the inside, the vineyard is abolished. If he made a fence on the outside, that is the circumference. But we deal with a field that was a grain field and he cleared four cubits in its midst. This agrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said, nothing forbidden may form a separation to save. They were of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to prohibit. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19): “In your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard kilaim,” creating your vineyard do not sow kilaim.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

Rebbi Zeïra said: It is written (Lev. 16:4) “He shall wear a garment of holy bad,” growing singly. But wool also grows in single strands. It is explained in tradition (Ez. 44:17): “There should be no wool on them when they officiate inside the inner doors.” Therefore, on the outside wool may be on them. From where that they may wear kilaim? As it says (Ex. 39:28): “The cap of byssus, the hat-turbans of byssus, the cloth trousers of spun byssus, and the belt of spun byssus, blue, purple, and crimson.” And it is written (Ez. 44:18): “Linen turbans shall be on their heads, linen trousers shall be on their hips, they shall not belt with sweat.” You infer “byssus” from “byssus”, “byssus” from “turbans”, “turbans” from “turbans”. Just as crimson is made from a living being, so the rest is made from a living being. Just as wool cannot have an epithet so linen cannot have an epithet.

If somebody was walking in public and discovered that he was wearing kilaim. Two Amoraïm, one said he is forbidden, the other one said he is permitted. The one who said he is forbidden, because it is a word of the Torah. The one who said he is permitted follows what R. Zeïra said: The dignity of the public is important enough to temporarily override a prohibition.

“Padded shoes”. There are places where they are padded from the outside. As Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Abba bar Zemina to tell Bar Rishon not to sew his shoes with flax but with [leather] strips. Rebbi Zeïra agrees that if one bound a woolen belt over a linen garment that would be permitted, for if he makes himself thin, it will fall down.

“Padded shoes”. There are places where they are padded from the outside. As Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Abba bar Zemina to tell Bar Rishon not to sew his shoes with flax but with [leather] strips. Rebbi Zeïra agrees that if one bound a woolen belt over a linen garment that would be permitted, for if he makes himself thin, it will fall down.

They asked before Rebbi Illaï: May one sew one’s shoes with flax? He said to them, because of Rebbi Zeïra, for Rebbi Zeïra said it is forbidden. Rebbi Illaï will agree that it is forbidden to wear woolen socks over linen socks since he cannot take off the inner ones unless he first takes off the outer ones. The father of Rav Safra asked Rebbi Zeïra: May one put coins in a woolen bag and tie it with a linen thread, or put coins on a linen cloth and tie it with a woolen thread? He said to him, does the rabbi not know Rav Huna? For Rav Huna said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Avina said, it is forbidden. Samuel said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Yasa said, it is permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Illaï: May one sew one’s shoes with flax? He said to them, because of Rebbi Zeïra, for Rebbi Zeïra said it is forbidden. Rebbi Illaï will agree that it is forbidden to wear woolen socks over linen socks since he cannot take off the inner ones unless he first takes off the outer ones. The father of Rav Safra asked Rebbi Zeïra: May one put coins in a woolen bag and tie it with a linen thread, or put coins on a linen cloth and tie it with a woolen thread? He said to him, does the rabbi not know Rav Huna? For Rav Huna said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Avina said, it is forbidden. Samuel said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Yasa said, it is permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Illaï: May one sew one’s shoes with flax? He said to them, because of Rebbi Zeïra, for Rebbi Zeïra said it is forbidden. Rebbi Illaï will agree that it is forbidden to wear woolen socks over linen socks since he cannot take off the inner ones unless he first takes off the outer ones. The father of Rav Safra asked Rebbi Zeïra: May one put coins in a woolen bag and tie it with a linen thread, or put coins on a linen cloth and tie it with a woolen thread? He said to him, does the rabbi not know Rav Huna? For Rav Huna said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Avina said, it is forbidden. Samuel said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Yasa said, it is permitted.

“If one tree yields, etc.” Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only he should not diminish from the computation of triads. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said, only he should not diminish from the computation of nonads.

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two. One willow for the lulab, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough.

It was stated: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 19:24): “And in the year.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Zeïra said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years they shall be uncircumcised for you, and in the [fourth] year.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said before Rebbi Zeïra: It is understandable if they were planted thirty days before the New Year. But if they were not planted thirty days before the New Year? Come and see: A full year is counted for him, and you say so? He said to him: If it is so, even if they were planted thirty days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until thirty days before the New Year? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year, it has to finish its year.

HALAKHAH: “Rice, millet,” etc. For produce they went after its being a third [ripe], for rice after roots taking hold, and for vegetables the collection is the time of its tithing. From where that they could go after its being a third [ripe] for produce? (Deut. 16:16) “From your threshing-floor and from your wine-press.” “From your threshing-floor”, not all your threshing-floor, “from your wine-press”, not all your wine-press. Then also if it is less than a third [ripe]? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deut. 14:22): “Tithe! You should tithe all produce of your seed,” something which may be sown and will sprout; this excludes produce less than a third [ripe] which when sown will not sprout. Then one should tithe the first third for the past and the other two thirds for the future! Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the holiday of Tabernacles. Just as Tabernacles belongs to the next year but you celebrate it for the past, so this one is for the future and you celebrate it for the past.

One might say, this similarly applies to rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame! Rebbi Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya said, there it is impossible to recognize. They objected to Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya, was it not stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits? Rebbi Yose said, Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya confirmed it; Rebbi Jonah, Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel: It is written (Deut. 14:22): “Tithe! You should tithe all produce of your seed,” you give one tithe in one year but not two tithes in one year. They objected, does not Egyptian bean require two tithes in one year? Was it not stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and harvest.” Six sowings and six harvests, not six sowings and seven harvests. Rebbi Jonah said, we cannot hold with six but instead hold with seven; so it is: Six sowings and seven harvests, not six sowings and five harvests. They objected, does not Egyptian bean have six sowings and five harvests? As it was stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one does not build a new water canal during the intermediate days of holidays or during the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeїra said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” says here “because of the bad impression”; the one who says “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what can he say here? The only answer would be “maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place.” What would be the difference between them? If he dug to build a water canal for a building. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” will say in this case “because of the bad impression,” but the one who says there "because he would prepare its banks to be sown,” here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he built there with lime, pebbles, stones, or cement it would be permitted.

Rebbi Zeїra said, first and first are supported.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi said before Rebbi Abbahu: Did not Rebbi Zeїra and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Libzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Julianus and his brother Pappos whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”

They saw the young Rebbi Abuna collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rebbi Jonah, did not Rebbi Zeїra and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Libzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Julianus and his brother Pappos whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, he does not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wants to eat warm bread. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina kissed the cliffs of Acco and said, up to here is the Land of Israel. Rebbi Zeїra crossed the Jordan in his clothing. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba rolled himself in the step of Tiberias. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya weighed rocks. Rebbi Ḥananiah weighed earth lumps to fulfill what was said (Ps. 102:19): “For Your servants desired its stones and they loved its dust.”

Rebbi Assi said, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the past, after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Zeїra objected before Rebbi Assi: Some years are late and dates start to have sap after the New Year’s Day of the World but they are tithed for the past! Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Assi did not say this on his own but following Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: “If it was one-third ripe before the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the past, after the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ for the future.” Rebbi Zeїra said, that is correct; for an etrog, did one not eliminate its budding but not its year; but here did one eliminate its year but not its budding?

Rebbi Assi said, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the past, after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Zeїra objected before Rebbi Assi: Some years are late and dates start to have sap after the New Year’s Day of the World but they are tithed for the past! Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Assi did not say this on his own but following Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: “If it was one-third ripe before the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the past, after the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ for the future.” Rebbi Zeїra said, that is correct; for an etrog, did one not eliminate its budding but not its year; but here did one eliminate its year but not its budding?

Rebbi Assi said, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the past, after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Zeїra objected before Rebbi Assi: Some years are late and dates start to have sap after the New Year’s Day of the World but they are tithed for the past! Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Assi did not say this on his own but following Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: “If it was one-third ripe before the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the past, after the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ for the future.” Rebbi Zeїra said, that is correct; for an etrog, did one not eliminate its budding but not its year; but here did one eliminate its year but not its budding?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Does this mean, the first third for the past, the second third for the future? He said to him, the first third is slow in coming; afterwards it grows rapidly. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra learned that from a competent sharecropper. Samuel said, sixty days for six leaves, six days for sixty leaves. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from the appearance of leaves to the bud fifty days, from the bud to the wind-fall fifty days, from wind-fall to figs fifty days. Rebbi says, all of them by forty days.” If somebody harvested figs and does not know when their buds were formed, Rebbi Jonah said he counts a hundred days backwards; if the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ falls in this period he knows when they budded.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Does this mean, the first third for the past, the second third for the future? He said to him, the first third is slow in coming; afterwards it grows rapidly. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra learned that from a competent sharecropper. Samuel said, sixty days for six leaves, six days for sixty leaves. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from the appearance of leaves to the bud fifty days, from the bud to the wind-fall fifty days, from wind-fall to figs fifty days. Rebbi says, all of them by forty days.” If somebody harvested figs and does not know when their buds were formed, Rebbi Jonah said he counts a hundred days backwards; if the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ falls in this period he knows when they budded.

“Arum of the year before the Sabbatical” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not so also in the other years of the cycle since we have stated: “If it was the second year entering the third, he may not bend it or withhold water from it so it should be Second Tithe; if it was the third year entering the fourth, he may bend it and withhold water from it so it should be tithe of the poor”? This implies that bending down is like tearing out! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Explain that he tore them out before they started to grow.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

Ashqelon itself? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Rebbi Simon in the name of Hilfai: The House of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they voted to free it from tithes. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand that was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: why did you remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah?

When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? Rebbi Simeon said, if the decision stands for forty days. Rebbi Jeremiah said, did we not hold it by error? Certainly it is immediately impure because of territory of the Gentiles! Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Is it not forbidden to go to Tyre and is the one who buys there not obligated? They voted to exempt it from tithes that you should not say the same in this case.

Rebbi Zeïra went to the hot springs of Pella and found himself outside of the “Babylonian date palms”. He sent to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked the two sons of Rebbi Eviatar from Dama who said to him, Cohanim are used to go there. The Cohanim asked Rebbi Joḥanan about that strip around Naveh. Rebbi Joḥanan said to them in the name of Rebbi Onias from Ḥauran: Cohanim are used to go there up to Edrei, and in the region of Bostra up to the orchard.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask Rebbi Ḥaninah: What is the status of one who buys in Ammon and Moab? Rebbi Zeïra said, I asked this question before Rebbi Assi: Are not Ammon and Moab from Moses? Rebbi Mana asked this question before Rebbi Ḥaggai: Are not Ammon and Moab from Moses? Ammon and Moab are not from Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written (Num. 22:26): “For Ḥešbon is the city of Siḥon, the king of the Amorites.” Rebbi Simeon was not sure whether it was purified from the hand of Siḥon and Og or not. If you say it was purified it is obligated, if you say it was not purified it is free. Rebbi Tanḥuma said (Deut. 2:31): “Make profane for inheritance, to inherit his land.” I made his land profane before you.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Abbahu went up to Arbel and was received by Abba bar Benjamin. They came and asked him about these onions; he taught them the statement of Rebbi Zeïra “once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.” He saw them relying on him; then he said to them: I was referring only to those that are bent down Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I know beginning and end; when he heard that Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Ammi disagreed, he shrank from it.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.