Mishnah
1 If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ʿorlah. Rabbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.
Halakhah
“If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written: “If you plant any food tree.”Leviticus 19:23 What is for food is obligated. What is for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Then a food tree should be obligated even if he intended it as a fence! The verse says, “a food tree.”
Rabbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said: “For three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it must not be eaten.”Leviticus 19:23 Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rabbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said: “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.”Leviticus 19:25 Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated. What is for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt.
It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? If he planted for fencing, logs, or wood, kinds appropriate for that use. If he planted an inappropriate kind it is obligated.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it correctly, what is the rabbis’ reason? Rabbi Zeïra said, if he changed the way it is usually planted: For wood, planting tightly together. For logs, cutting off branches. For a fence, the location of the fence proves it.
It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meïr: “All trees can be exempted by intention except olive and fig trees.” Rabbi Meïr is consistent since he says all trees are fruitless except olive and fig trees.
It was stated in the name of Rabbi Simeon: Only three kinds can be exempted by intention: buckthorn, sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rabbi Abba bar Mamal and Rabbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rabbi Hila said he is exempt. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.”Deuteronomy 14:29 You are obliged to give him from what you have but he does not have. This excludes abandoned property to which you and he have equal access. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.
Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor. But he argues from the following: “If someone keeps cabbage for seeds, his intention has no effect; for single stalks it does have an effect.” Rabbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes?
Are these forbidden because of robbery? Is wood not also forbidden because of robbery? What is his problem? For example, mulberry trees with no solid wood.
A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated,” at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt,” at a place where the majority do not guard. Rabbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think about it! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if he thinks about them? But even if half do guard and half do not guard! Rabbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ʿorlah. Rabbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ʿorlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rabbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.
Rav Huna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ʿorlah? Rav Huna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ʿorlah. Did we not state there: “You shall buy for yourselves”Leviticus 23:40 and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, “it shall be a day of blasts for you,”Leviticus 23:24 from anywhere. And here: “For three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,”Leviticus 19:23 in any way. What is the difference between this and someone who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, “fruit”Leviticus 23:40; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can fulfill his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.
Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked Rabbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as a fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as a fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as a fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as a fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: Up to here, for a fence. The rest, for food.
Rabbi Zeïra asked: One understands if the lower part is for a fence but the upper part for food, but the lower part for food but the upper part as a fence? It grows out of something forbidden and you say so? Rabbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rabbi Zeïra said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard which he removed from the soil and planted again is forbidden even if it increases many times over, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.
If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it follows his intention. If he first thought to use it for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his intent cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he intended to make it obligated, it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rabbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with the intention to make it obligated, it is obligated.
If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rabbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rabbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Jeremiah’s opinion seems difficult, but it is reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rabbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?
Rabbi Joḥanan said, this is Rabbi Ishmael’s position: Anything not subject to ʿorlah is not subject to the fourth year. Rabbi Joḥanan asked: Until it was subject to ʿorlah for three years? Rabbi Jonah said, he asked about the basic requirement of ʿorlah, and the basic requirement of ʿorlah is never less than three years. Rabbi Yose said, he asked about the basic requirement of the fourth year; anything not having three years is not subject to ʿorlah and not subject to the fourth year.
It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.
Rabbi Zeïra in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rabbi who said roots live off one another? It is everyone’s opinion. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, you deal with an old root that expanded from its own ground to another person’s ground; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.
An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rabbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rabbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.
Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rabbi Zeïra said to Rabbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rabbi Joḥanan or did you discuss ʿorlah and this came up relating to First Fruits when he said, roots do not count? Rabbi Zeïra said, what we say, roots do not count, if the roots spread from outside the Land into the Land. But when they spread from the Land to outside the Land they do count.
If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to a tree outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated tree it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated tree it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about it and make it obligated.
Does Rabbi Yose follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? He might even agree with Rabbi! ʿOrlah depends on one’s intention, tithes do not depend on his intention.
Mishnah
2 When our ancestors came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rabbi Judah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, a non-Jew who planted, a robber who planted, and someone who plants on a ship, are obligated for ʿorlah.
Halakhah
“When you plant,”Leviticus 19:23 this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land. Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts.
“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rabbi Ishmael who said all “comings” said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Ishmael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ʿorlah. It was also stated this way: “At your coming,”Numbers 15:18 because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed the terms of obligation. Rabbi Jonah asked: Rabbi Ishmael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same, “breaking” and “smashing” is the same, “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same, and here he takes note of a change in expression!
“If he planted for the public benefit, it is obligated; Rabbi Judah exempts.” The rabbis seem inconsistent. There, they say: “Jerusalem and outside the Land cannot become impure by skin disease,” but here, they say so! There “the owner of the house comes,”Leviticus 14:35 excluding Jerusalem which was not distributed among the tribes. But here, “when you plant,”Leviticus 19:23 in any way.
Rabbi Judah seems inconsistent. There he says, “I heard only the Temple,” and here he says so! There, he says “I heard only the Temple” as a tradition, here in his own name.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it following Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ʿorlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ʿorlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rabbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.
Rabbi Josiah brought saplings from outside the Land in their earth and planted them in the Land. Rabbi Jonah, to gain the years. Rabbi Yose, to gain the fourth year.
It was stated: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a fruitless tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ʿorlah.” From when does one count ʿorlah? From the moment it is planted. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud; but on a willow it is as if planted in the earth. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable. According to Rabbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year. And that is what has been said, “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.” Rabbi Joshua from Ono stated: There is no “grafted” here. Rabbi Abba Mari said, even for Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; after the fact, certainly not as permission to do it from the start.
Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqola in the name of Ḥizqiah: If somebody plants in a flower pot without a hole, it is subject to ʿorlah. Rabbi Yose said, because the roots break through it. Rabbi Jonah uses the expression: Clay vessels withstand roots. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If he planted a gourd in it, since it is as if there were a hole for trees, is it also as if it had a hole for vegetables?
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: A tree planted inside a house is obligated for ʿorlah but free from tithes since it is written: “You shall certainly tithe all the yield of your seeds that comes from the field.”Deuteronomy 14:22 For the Sabbatical year it is problematic since it is written: “The Land shall celebrate a Sabbath for the Eternal.”Leviticus 25:2 And it is written: “You shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.”Leviticus 25:4
Mishnah
3 If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plow displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large must the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Judah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rabbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one two-hundredth it is forbidden.
Halakhah
This is how the Mishnah reads: If it could survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.
Ḥizqiah asked: Less than that, is it as if torn out? If he worshiped it, is it forbidden? Does one write on it women’s bills of divorce? They say, Ḥizqiah retracted this. Rabbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted because Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, if it is thick like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three years old.
Ḥizqiah asked: A third of a needle means one year, two thirds two years? The colleagues asked: A needle and a third, is it obvious that it is four years old? If you say, he did not retract, why would he have asked this? Rabbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted this, because Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, if it is thick like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three years old.
Rabbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rabbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rabbi Yose: “Rabbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rabbi Yudan said, according to Rabbi Tarfon we throw it on its width.
“If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch.” There is blessing in it. Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: There is bĕrîkhâ in it. Rabbi Mana said, some people are called Bĕrîkhâ as you say: “Come, the Eternal’s blessed.”Genesis 24:31
Rabbi Zeïra, Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina; Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that the young tree may have formed roots before it was well connected to the old one? Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Hillel: This follows Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.
Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rabbi Zeïra said to Rabbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rabbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rabbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ʿorlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ʿorlah.” You wanted to say that a dedicated tree is exempt from ʿorlah and an old tree is exempt from ʿorlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it and make it obligated; can you say about an old tree that one might think about it and make it obligated?
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A citrus medica tree which formed flower buds subject to ʿorlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; if the tree was attached to another tree even if the fruit grows much it is forbidden because growth of something forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden. Therefore, an attached young twig must be permitted because, if you say it is not permitted, even if it grows much it will be forbidden! Rabbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis: A citrus medica tree which formed flower buds subject to ʿorlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; what was attached to another tree even if it grows much is forbidden; one whips for the size of an olive.
Rabbi Maisha said to Rabbi Zeïra: You say two things which contradict each other. Here you say, because growth of anything forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden; there you say one whips for the size of an olive. Should he not be whipped only in the proportion it contains? Rabbi Jonah said, in the first case it lives because of itself, in the second because of the attachment. Then if a citrus medica, which blossomed in an ʿorlah year and grew in an exempt year, is attached reciprocally to a tree of the same kind they will cleanse one another.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they differ in the uninformed case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know? Rabbi Vivian in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned toward the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned toward the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rabbi Yudan bar Ḥanin said, a sign: Someone who eats at his neighbor’s expense is ashamed to look at him. Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.
“A sunk branch which became separated.” Rabbi Yudan said, not only a sunk branch but even a tree; as Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything, but you should not say it applies here too.
Ḥilfai asked Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates demaʿ?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create demaʿ! But we deal with grapes. Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.
Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of taste one in sixty. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rabbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates demaʿ?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create demaʿ! Therefore, we hold even more. Rabbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rabbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.
How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! You cannot do this, as it was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rabbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.
Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted.
In addition, “if it increased by one two-hundredth it is forbidden.” Those of the house of Rabbi Yannai estimate by purslane. How does one know? Rav Vivian in the name of Rabbi Ḥaninah: He takes one out and leaves one in the ground; the amount the first has lost is the amount the other has increased.
Mishnah
4 If a sapling of ʿorlah or vineyard kilaim became mixed with other saplings, one should not harvest. If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred on condition that he did not have the intention to harvest. Rabbi Yose says, he may intend to harvest; it will be lifted by one in two hundred.
Halakhah
“A sapling of ʿorlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! This is how the Mishnah reads: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.
Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: He harvests three bunches and permits. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish’s position is reversed! There, he said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: If he had 150 amphoras in front of him which were opened, one hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rabbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they were opened”; therefore at the start it is forbidden to open them. And here, he says so? There in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia, here in the name of Ḥizqiah. They say there in the name of Ḥizqiah: He opens three amphoras and permits; one follows Ḥizqiah here.
But did we not state, “One should not harvest”? It applies after the fact. And we have stated: “If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, in the first case if he harvested three; in the second case if he harvested all of them.
It was stated: Pomegranates of Bedan in case of doubt can be lifted, but in a certain case cannot be lifted. It is the same on the ground. A doubt on the ground can be lifted, but the ground cannot lift. How is this? If a sapling of ʿorlah or vineyard kilaim became mixed with other saplings, even a case of doubt on the ground can be lifted, but the ground cannot lift. Rabbi Yudan asked: Is it the same for a carcass? Rabbi Yudan turned around and said, a carcass has no lifting, the ground has a lifting.
“Rabbi Yose says, he may even intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred.” What is Rabbi Yose’s reason? People are always thinning vines.
There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rabbi Yose’s, since “Rabbi Yose said, he may even intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rabbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to milling demaʿ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.
Mishnah
5 Leaves, shoots, vine sap, and the flower are permitted for ʿorlah, the Fourth Year, and a nazir, but forbidden from a pagan sacred grove. Rabbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit. Rabbi Eliezer says, it is forbidden to use ʿorlah sap as curd. Rabbi Joshua said, I heard explicitly that one is permitted to use sap of leaves and sap of roots as curd. But the sap of unripe figs is forbidden because that is a fruit. Anqoqlot, the grape skins, the grape seeds, and the afterwine made from them, pomegranate skins and their flowers, nutshells, and seeds are forbidden from ʿorlah, sacred groves, and for a nazir. They are permitted in the fourth year. Windfall is forbidden for all of these. Rabbi Yose said, one may plant an ʿorlah shoot but not an ʿorlah nut because the latter is a fruit. Also, one does not graft with spathe of ʿorlah.
Halakhah
“Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Eliezer, as was stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: “He shall not eat anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin,”Numbers 6:4 that includes leaves and shoots.
It was stated: “Rabbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the nazir why a fruit? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! Rabbi Isaac’s statement implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rabbi Isaac asked: Who stated “one does not graft with spathe of ʿorlah”? Rabbi Yose!
It was stated: You redeem fruit; you do not redeem either unripe grapes or unripe figs. Rabbi Zavida instructed about unripe dates that they should be buried. Rabbi Jonah asked: If he transgressed and redeemed them, is it not redeemed? And you want to say, it needs to be buried!
Rabbi Pedat, Rabbi Assi, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Simeon follows Rabbi Joshua’s opinion, as we have stated there: “Rabbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rabbi Zeïra said to Rabbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rabbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rabbi Simeon? Rabbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of ʿorlah never falls on it. Rabbi Abun said, there is another difference: Rabbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rabbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of ʿorlah is forbidden.
“Anqoqlot and the grape skins.” Rabbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis in the name of Rav: Grapes which went bad before they were one-third ripe. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, even after they were one-third ripe. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is a stenographic expression: “Grapes becoming bad at a third.”
“Rabbi Yose said, one may not plant a shoot.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, if one transgressed and planted, it is permitted; if he transgressed and grafted it is forbidden.
An ʿorlah walnut which one planted, and similarly, an egg of idol worship which turned into a chick. Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Josiah: Ḥizqiah and Cahana differ. Cahana said it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said it is forbidden. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah it should be impossible for an egg of idol worship to become a chick. What is this about? If someone squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshiped it, it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating should it be forbidden? Rabbi Yudan the father of Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used it to fence in the idol.
If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rabbi Assi said, Cahana and Rabbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rabbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rabbi Zeïra said to Rabbi Assi, since Rabbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem it at its value when it was sown? Rabbi Ḥanania and Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it at its value when it was sown. Rabbi Ḥanania in the name of Rabbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rabbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it at its value when it was sown.
Mishnah
1 Heave, heave of the tithe of demay, ḥallah, and First Fruits are lifted by one and 100, they combine with one another, and one has to remove. ʿOrlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200, they combine with one another, and one need not remove. Rabbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rabbi Eliezer says they combine in matters of perceiving the taste but not to forbid.
Halakhah
“Heave and heave of the tithe,” etc. For whom is this needed? For Rabbi Simeon. Even though Rabbi Simeon says that two different names do not combine, he agrees that all items called “heave” do combine.
Who stated “heave of the tithe of demay”? Rabbi Meïr, since Rabbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rabbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah? Rabbi Ḥanina said, the following which we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain on her clothes is out of order and must consider the possibility of flux, the words of Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages say that stains do not imply flux.”
Rabbi Jonah asked: Why did we not also state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state “ḥallah”? Should we not state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state: “Heave, heave of the tithe and heave of the tithe of demay”? Rabbi Ḥanania in the name of Samuel: Demay does not need ḥallah. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said to him, one takes its value from the tribe. He answered him, that is what Samuel said, one takes its value from the tribe. Rabbi Mana in the name of Rabbi Yose: One does not take its value from the tribe; tomorrow he will bring certain ḥallah and say it is demay in order to take its value from the tribe!
Rabbi Joḥanan asked Gamliel the Twin: Are you used to taking ḥallah from demay? He answered him, did not Samuel, the brother of Rav Berekhia, say that from the moment they decreed demay, most people separate it in their houses? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is a condition of the court that ḥallah be in the northernmost part.
“And are lifted by one and 100.” How do you treat it, as the beginning of separation or the end of separation? If you say as the beginning of separation, no minor may lift, no unrelated person may lift, and it does not override the Sabbath. If you treat it as the end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does override the Sabbath. There we have stated: “Rabbi Judah says, also one may lift demaʿ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Judah treated it as the end of separation and Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as the beginning of separation. Rabbi Yose said, even Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as the end of separation. Does not Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain produce? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.
There, we have stated: “Rabbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 100. Rabbi Joshua says by 100 and more.” There, Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, wherever Rabbi taught a disagreement and later returned to the problem and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. Since we have stated: “A seah of heave which fell into 100” and Rabbi Eleazar said, one cannot say “into 100” but “into 99.” As we have stated, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua.
How do we know that they may be lifted? Rabbi Jonah said, it is written: “From all its best, take its sanctifying part from it.”Numbers 18:29 Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rabbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rabbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes demaʿ.
It was stated: “Rabbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by an argument from the lesser to the greater: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, how much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted,” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted,” because heave is forbidden to lay people. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted,” because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted,” in the case of demaʿ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted,” in the case of demaʿ by pure heave.
It was stated: “A piece of the showbread which was mixed with a hundred pieces of profane bread, or a piece of purification sacrifice mixed with a hundred profane pieces of meat, should not be lifted. Rabbi Judah says they should be lifted.” What is Rabbi Judah’s reason? “One sheep from 200 from the drink of Israel,”Ezekiel 45:15 from what is permitted to Israel. It is difficult! It is written 200 and Rabbi Judah says 100. The verse speaks of a living animal and Rabbi Judah speaks of a slaughtered animal. What is the difference between alive and slaughtered? Rabbi Ḥinena said, they considered live ones under the category of what usually is counted.
So far, this applies to something that one lifts and in this way permits for lay people. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven? Let us learn from the following: “‘After that he shall eat from the holy foods because it is his bread.’Leviticus 22:7 There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100.”
“Not only heave food in heave food; how do we know about heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? How do we know? The verse says ‘From the holy foods,’Leviticus 22:7 it adds.” Rabbi Abin in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rabbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.
What is Rabbi Judah’s position, following Rabbi Eliezer or Rabbi Joshua? Following Rabbi Eliezer he lifts and eats; following Rabbi Joshua he lifts and burns.
Who stated “they combine with one another”? Rabbi Meïr, since Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The word of Rabbi Meïr is that all forbidden foods combine with one another to whip for them in the volume of an olive since it says: “You shall not eat any abomination.”Deuteronomy 14:3
Here, you say one has to lift, but there you say, one does not have to lift! Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, because of robbing the tribe. Also, it was stated this way: “Any heave for which the Cohanim do not care, for example, the heave of kelesin, carob, and red barley, one does not have to lift.”
“ʿOrlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fullness, the fullness.” Just as “the fullness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fullness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ʿorlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.
So far following Rabbi Aqiba, following Rabbi Ishmael? Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, an argument from the lesser to the greater. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ʿorlah which is permitted to outsiders, does this not apply all the more? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ʿorlah whose use is prohibited! Rabbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision.
They combine with one another either to permit or to forbid if one can taste them, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rabbi Eliezer says they combine if one tastes them, not to forbid.
Where do they disagree? If three qab of ʿorlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ʿorlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred seah. If three qab of ʿorlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ʿorlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or as if three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ʿorlah?
It is obvious that his knowledge permits it. Does the knowledge of a third person permit it? How is this possible? He is not aware of it; another person is aware of it.
Does uncertain knowledge permit like certain knowledge? How is this? If he had two boxes in front of him, one containing 200 and one less than 200. If one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which one it fell and then another seah fell into the second. It was measured and found to be 202. If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted. If there was one chest and there is a doubt whether it contains 200 or not; if one seah of heave fell into some box but it is not known whether it fell into that box or not, and then a second time something forbidden fell into the box in question: If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted.
Mishnah
2 Heave lifts ʿorlah and ʿorlah heave. How is that? If one seah of heave fell into 100 and after that three qab fell in of ʿorlah or three qab of vineyard kilaim, that is the case when heave lifts ʿorlah and ʿorlah heave. ʿOrlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ʿorlah, and ʿorlah ʿorlah. How is that? If one seah of ʿorlah fell into 200 and then a little more than a seah fell in of ʿorlah or a little more than a seah of vineyard kilaim, that is when ʿorlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ʿorlah, and ʿorlah ʿorlah.
Halakhah
Rabbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ʿorlah but heave adds to the profane to lift heave ʿorlah. One understands that heave lifts ʿorlah because pure heave lifts the impure. “ʿOrlah lifts heave,” does impure heave lift the pure, not for lay people, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ʿOrlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ʿorlah, and ʿorlah ʿorlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.
“A seah of heave which fell into 100.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it is not “into 100” but “into 99.” “A seah of ʿorlah which fell into 200.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it is not “into 200” but “into 199.”
Mishnah
3 Anything which sours, or spices, or creates demaʿ from heave, or is ʿorlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates demaʿ, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.
Halakhah
Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hilfai, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: The House of Shammai made it as if swollen.
There, we have stated: “Dyers’ water disables a miqweh by three log but not by a change in color.” Abba, the son of Rav Naḥman, said, the words of Rabbi Meïr because it is visibly drawn. Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Abba: Rabbi Meïr’s opinion parallels the House of Shammai’s. Just as the House of Shammai say because of souring it makes sour, so Rabbi Meïr says because it is visibly drawn.
So far something to which prohibition and impurity apply. What is the rule if impurity applies but not prohibition?
If he took from it for another place to make it sour, both are forbidden. If he added to the first dough and made it insignificant, the main object will be derivative and the derivative the main object. “Heave sourdough which fell into a dough and was lifted, if the dough became sour afterwards, is permitted. Similarly, if a heave fig fell into 100 figs, one was lifted, and afterwards the heave was recognized, should it be permitted?” There, the prohibited dough was not identified; here, the prohibited fig is identified.
Rabbi Jonah asked, why did we not state: If groats were cooked with rice? Our Mishnah follows the person who holds that what gives a bad taste is permitted. But even the person who holds that what gives a bad taste is permitted, here he will agree that it is forbidden.
If heave groats fell into profane lentils and can be tasted, if he added profane lentils they become permitted. How much does he have to add? A disagreement between Rabbi and Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose. In the opinion of Rabbi, one says until he adds for all of them. In the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, one says until he adds corresponding to what fell in. If groats were cooked with profane lentils and cannot be tasted, if he added profane groats, this kind reactivates its own to make it forbidden. But this should not be stronger than libation wine! As you say regarding libation wine, you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. Here you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. That means, if he added groats, the heave is permitted.
Mishnah
4 If profane sourdough fell into dough, enough to cause souring, and afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, also enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden. If profane sourdough fell into dough and caused it to become sour when afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden but Rabbi Simeon permits it.
Halakhah
Ḥanania stated in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The first Mishnah also is in disagreement. Rabbi Jonah said, we maintain that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour.
“Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rabbi Meïr will agree. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rabbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is everyone’s opinion. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said this tradition here: Rabbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is everyone’s opinion.
Rabbi Jonah said, the statement of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish is necessary since we meant to say that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour. Even if profane sourdough fell in first, it is considered that first it improved and then spoiled. Rabbi Jonah came back to this and said, that woman will not make it thoroughly sour, she will leave a little bit. That little bit should be considered as if it first improved and then spoiled. That is difficult, if it improved and did not spoil, is that nothing?
Rabbi Jonah asked: What is the difference if it improved from both of them or spoiled from both of them? If it improved from both of them, it is forbidden. If it spoiled from both of them, it is permitted. Rabbi Mana said, if it improved from both of them, you consider the permitted as nonexistent; the forbidden is enough to make it forbidden. If it spoiled from both of them, you consider the permitted as nonexistent; the forbidden is not enough to make it forbidden.
Mishnah
5 Spices, two or three names from one kind, or one name for three are forbidden and combine. Rabbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine.
Halakhah
We understand two names for one kind. But two kinds of one name? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: They taught this about sweeteners.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, there are three kinds of imparting taste. Anything a common person tastes and says, this dish is not missing anything, if it fell in, it may improve the taste but is permitted. Even if he says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is permitted. But if a professional tastes it and says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is forbidden.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, all forbidden food is estimated as if it were an onion, as if it were leeks. That is, anything usually estimated as if it were an onion, as if it were leeks. Anything which is not usually estimated as if it were an onion, as if it were leeks, how do you estimate it? How do you estimate cumin?
Rabbi Yudan said, did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners usually are estimated as if they were onions or leeks, one estimates them as if they were onions or leeks. All other forbidden foods, since they are not usually estimated as if they were onions or leeks one estimates in their kinds. One estimates cumin by its kind.
Rabbi Mana did not say so but: Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners all taste the same, they are estimated as if they were onions, as if they were leeks. All other forbidden foods, since they do not taste the same one does not estimate them as if they were onions, as if they were leeks. Cumin is a problem.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rabbi Ḥama bar Yose objected to Rabbi Joḥanan: There is meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What does it mean that he accepted that? He accepted it like a person who listens to the opposing party’s argument.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rabbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rabbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rabbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said: ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’Numbers 6:3? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said: ‘he should not eat anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins.’Numbers 6:4 ‘he shall abstain from wine and liquor.’Numbers 6:3 Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rabbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted,” and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”
Mishnah
6 Spices, two or three names from one kind, or one name for three are forbidden and combine. Rabbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Yoezer from Bira was one of Shammai’s students. He said, I asked Rabban Gamliel I when he was standing at the eastern gate and he said, it does not forbid unless it alone could make it sour.
Halakhah
There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted wine, if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rabbi Eliezer, as Rabbi Eliezer said, I follow the last one. Rabbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rabbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted wine, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rabbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rabbi Ammi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rabbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.
So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Rabbi Eleazar said, let us learn from the following: “When is the leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural bakers after three baking loads. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important person or he married off his son, if he baked three loads one after the other it is permitted. And even when they said of city bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other it is permitted.” It was stated: “Rabbi Simeon says even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted?
And Rabbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rabbi Eliezer! And Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rabbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rabbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rabbi Eliezer. In addition from the following: Rabbi Ḥanina said, my father Rabbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Assi, and Rabbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rabbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rabbi Eliezer.
Rabbi Mana said to Rabbi Yose: What do you say, there practice follows Rabbi Eliezer; does practice here follow Rabbi Eliezer? He said to him, for everything?
Mishnah
7 If vessels were oiled first with impure oil and then with pure, or first with pure and then with impure, Rabbi Eliezer says I follow the first, but the Sages say after the last.
Halakhah
What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? The first pushes the last out.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing. As we have stated there: “In a narrow-mouthed flask he dips and takes it out normally. Rabbi Judah says, for the first sprinkling.” Just as Rabbi Judah said the first pushes out the last, so here Rabbi Eliezer said the first pushes out the last.
So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side, what does Rabbi Eliezer say? Let us learn from the following which Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl; and Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.
Mishnah
8 Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rabbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim. If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rabbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.
Halakhah
“If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rabbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon permits to lay people.”
Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi Joḥanan asked: What is the difference between heave with regard to lay people and Sabbatical produce with regard to Cohanim? Heave for lay people is forbidden; is Sabbatical produce for Cohanim permitted? Rabbi Joḥanan returned to the point and said, explain it as a case in which heave sourdough fell in first; the Sabbatical produce only spoiled.
Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon follows his father’s argument. What is his father’s argument? Just as Rabbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted, so Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted. Rabbi Abba Mari said, what is his father’s argument? Just as Rabbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted, so Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted. But Rabbi Simeon said that only about aftergrowth of vegetables; did he say that for aftergrowth of grains? He established that aftergrowth of vegetables and aftergrowth of grains are the same.
The rabbis of Caesarea said, in one respect he follows his father’s argument, in another the Sages’ argument. His father’s argument, that anything which spoils the taste is permitted. The argument of the Sages, that different names combine.
Mishnah
9 Spices, two or three names from one kind, or one name for three are forbidden and combine. Rabbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Most holy meat and simply holy meat that was cooked with meat of desire is forbidden to impure persons and permitted to pure.
Halakhah
It was stated: “Of piggul, leftovers, or holy sacrifices.”
Rabbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one can never administer lashes for eating as a lay person. Rabbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices”? Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for eating them. Rabbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rabbi Yose: “‘Your dedications,’Deuteronomy 12:17 thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”
Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rabbi Joḥanan said, everyone’s opinion. It is difficult for Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy meat, of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with profane pieces, Rabbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”
Mishnah
1 Cloth dyed with ʿorlah shells should be burned. If it became mixed up with others, all should be burned, the words of Rabbi Meïr; but the Sages said, it should be lifted by one in 200.
Halakhah
“Cloth dyed with ʿorlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.”Leviticus 19:23 Some Tannaïm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaïm state: What encloses the fruit. The person who says what encloses the fruit understands shells and pits. The person who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. How do we know about pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which encloses its fruit or its fruit encloses it.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten,” you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? “You shall not eat flesh torn in the field.”Exodus 22:31 And what did it explain about a carcass? “Do not eat any carcass. You shall give it to the resident foreigner in your towns, and he may eat it.”Deuteronomy 14:21 Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?
But is it not written: “You shall not eat any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats”Leviticus 7:23? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal.”Leviticus 7:24 But is it not written: “Only the blood”Deuteronomy 12:16? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written: “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic muscle”Genesis 32:32? Rabbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written: “You shall not eat bread, parched or fresh grains”Leviticus 23:14? Rabbi Abba Mari the brother of Rabbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: “Do not eat them for they are abominations”Leviticus 11:42? Rabbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rabbi Ḥanina said: “So that it will not be sanctified,”Deuteronomy 22:9 so that fire will not be kindled. For ʿorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written, a prohibition to eat is written, a prohibition to remove it is not written.
In a baraita one disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said: ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’Exodus 21:28? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rabbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it as a case in which the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.
Rabbi Zeïra asked Rabbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan.
The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written “do not eat.” The paradigm for all cases is: “Any purification offering whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten. It shall be burned in fire.”Leviticus 6:30 Ḥizqiah stated support for Rabbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: “You shall not eat any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats,”Leviticus 7:23 why has it been said: “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”Leviticus 7:24? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said “But you shall not eat the blood,”Deuteronomy 12:16 why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said “Do not eat any carcass,”Deuteronomy 14:21 why has it been said “you shall give it to the resident foreigner in your towns, and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident foreigner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: “You shall not eat flesh torn in the field,”Exodus 22:31 why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? You throw this to the dog but not profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.
A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rabbi Eleazar. “‘Sour bread shall not be eaten,’Exodus 13:3 to make the feeder equal to the eater. Do you say it is for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’Deuteronomy 16:3 we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rabbi Josiah. Rabbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread, which is a major prohibition, it is logical that the feeder should be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rabbi Joḥanan.
It is obvious that the ground cannot be forbidden. If one painted a figure on the ground it is forbidden. If he colored a living being, if he worshiped it, it is not forbidden; because he colored it did he make it forbidden? Therefore, if he colored it, it is of questionable status.
How do you treat a large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut into pieces? As one locked up or declared absolute? If you treat it as locked up it is permitted, as declared absolute it will be forbidden.
If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ʿorlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to the person who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to the person who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ʿorlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large”? Rav Huna said, this is how the Mishnah reads: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ʿorlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rabbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, pigments in pigments become insignificant in 200. Fluid dyes in fluid dyes by a majority.
Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ʿorlah in Tiberias is judged by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ʿorlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rabbi Yose said, does Rabbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, it applies after the fact. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted dye as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted dye as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.
There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rabbi Zeïra in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: This is Rabbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. What case are we discussing? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.
May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rabbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rabbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rabbi Jonah asked Rabbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.
Rabbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rabbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ʿorlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it wood to make a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rabbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rabbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.
Mishnah
2 If somebody dyes a thread the length of a sîṭ with ʿorlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rabbi Meïr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. With sanctified material, it sanctifies even in the smallest amount.
Halakhah
Who stated “sîṭ”? Rabbi Meïr! But for the Sages, sîṭ or less than a sîṭ follow the same rules.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rabbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rabbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.
There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rabbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Rabbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.
“With sanctified material, it sanctifies even in the smallest amount.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rabbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?
Some state this in the name of Rabbi Meïr. Some do not state this in the name of Rabbi Meïr. Those who state this in the name of Rabbi Meïr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rabbi Meïr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rabbi Meïr follows Rabbi Aqiba, as Rabbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”
Mishnah
3 A dish cooked with ʿorlah shells must be burned. If it was mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200. If one heated an oven with ʿorlah shells and used it to bake bread, the bread must be burned. If it was mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200.
Halakhah
Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ʿorlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rabbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rabbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ʿorlah shells.
If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaïm state they became free of their impurity; some Tannaïm state they did not become free of their impurity. For him who stated they became free of their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not become free of their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they became free of their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written: “A cursed plague,”Leviticus 14:44 it should be cursed and you shall derive no benefit from it. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected to Rabbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the leprous house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”
Mishnah
4 If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rabbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rabbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rabbi Aqiba says seven.
Halakhah
How much is a bundle? 25 plants. Rabbi Jonah said, four to a bed.
Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rabbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rabbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rabbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rabbi Judah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”
Does one not count other pomegranates? But one usually counts Badan pomegranates because they are preferred; one does not usually count other pomegranates because they are not preferred.
Mishnah
5 They are: Breakable walnuts and pomegranates from Badan, sealed amphoras, beetroots, heads of cabbage, and Greek gourd. Rabbi Aqiba says, also noncommercial loaves. This refers to ʿorlah and vineyard kilaim, as the case may be.
Halakhah
Rabbi Jonah asked: Therefore, not breakable almonds?
The Mishnah is about sealed among sealed. But a sealed one among open ones which was opened, or an open one among sealed ones which was sealed again need a measure. How is an open one among sealed ones possible? Rabbi Zeïra said, explain as open at the grocer’s and sealed at the private person’s. But did we not state “it was sealed again”? Explain it if the private person came and took it back.
Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: All these gourds and pumpkins we eat fall under the rules of Greek gourd.
Rabbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rabbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, ʿorlah does not always apply.
Mishnah
6 If the walnuts were broken, the pomegranates dispersed, the amphoras opened, the gourds cut, the loaves broken, they may be lifted by one in 200.
Halakhah
If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Judah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rabbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? They imposed a fine for an unintentional act because of an intentional one. What is Rabbi Judah’s reason? He already paid his fine. What is Rabbi Yose’s reason? As Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which something permitted was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.
Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: If he had 150 amphoras in front of him which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden; this remainder will be permitted if they have been opened. Rabbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they have been opened”; therefore at the start it is forbidden.
They asked at the House of Rabbi Yannai: Does a gourd which was cooked while connected to the ground create ṭevel for tithes? Levi asked, can it become impure as food? If it was cooked it is as if cut into pieces. Samuel’s statement implies that it becomes impure as food, as Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Samuel: Figs and raisins which shriveled on the tree may become impure as food and anybody who takes them down on the Sabbath is guilty of harvesting.
“If the loaves were broken.” The Mishnah is Rabbi Aqiba’s since “Rabbi Aqiba says, also noncommercial loaves.”
Mishnah
7 A doubtful case of ʿorlah in the Land of Israel is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land one goes and buys on condition that he does not see the harvesting being done. If a vineyard is planted with vegetables and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land he goes and harvests on condition that he does not harvest with his own hands. New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah, ʿorlah from practice, and kilaim by rabbinic decree.
Halakhah
What is a doubtful case of ʿorlah? An ʿorlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rabbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rabbi Judah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”
“Outside the Land he goes, he harvests on condition that he does not harvest with his own hands.” Rabbi Yudan said, that also should be equal to the first, “he turns in and buys on condition that he does not see him harvesting.”
“New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah.” The Mishnah is Rabbi Eliezer’s as we have stated there: “Any commandment not connected with the Land applies both inside and outside the Land. But any connected with the Land applies only inside the Land except for ʿorlah and kilaim. Rabbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? Everywhere, “in all your dwelling places,”Leviticus 23:14 both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain Rabbi Eliezer’s reason, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported.
Rabbi Jonah asked Rabbi Yose: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? He said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, as it is written: “The first of your dough,”Numbers 15:20 not of Gentiles.
“ʿOrlah from practice.” Samuel said, practice of the country. Rabbi Joḥanan said, practice from Moses on Sinai. Rabbi Assi asked Rabbi Joḥanan, practice from Moses on Sinai, and you say so? He said, when practice was proclaimed, it was given in this way. He said, if I had come to the Land of Israel only to hear this it would have been enough for me.
“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan and proved it. “You must keep My basic Laws, you should not mate your animals as kilaim, you shall not sow your field as kilaim, ... šaʿaṭnez shall not be worn by you.”Leviticus 19:19 It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land, so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.
A person sowed his field with barley and turnips. Ḥanin from Gobya passed by and tore them out. The case came before Samuel who fined him, as we have stated: “One does not work with a Jew in kilaim, but one does help him to tear out kilaim because that helps to diminish sin.”
It was stated: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, whether vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are forbidden in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, whether vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are forbidden in the Land, so they are outside the Land”; that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rabbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, whether vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are forbidden in the Land, so they are outside the Land”; that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.
Intertextual Commentary on Jerusalem Orlah
0 commentaries
No commentary on this book yet.