Mishnah
1 Five persons cannot give heave and if they gave it, it is not heave: the deaf-mute, the insane, the minor, and one who gives heave from what is not his. The Gentile who gave heave for a Jew’s property, even with the latter’s authorization, his heave is not heave. A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave, but if he did, his heave is heave. A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute. Rabbi Judah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. Rabbi Yose says, before he came to the time of vows, his heave is not heave. After he has reached the time of vows, his heave is heave.
Halakhah
“Five persons cannot give heave,” etc. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman understood all of these from here: “Speak to the Children of Israel that they should give heave for Me,”Exodus 25:2–3 excluding the Gentile, “from every man,” excluding the minor, “whose intention is to volunteer,” excluding the deaf-mute and the insane. “The following is the heave you shall accept from them,” except from one who gives heave for what is not his.
Should not their action be proof of their intentions? As we have stated there: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rabbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew. We also have stated there: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that his animals’ feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rabbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan; Rabbi Zeira in the name of the rabbis: “Your heave will be credited to you.”Numbers 18:27 When thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.
Rabbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rabbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rabbi Joḥanan asked, is that: “he writes for her,”Deuteronomy 24:1, 3 for her personally? Rabbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rabbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rabbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”
It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when was this said? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf-mute, he writes and others confirm his signature. If he hears but cannot speak, he is like a normal person.”
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him the document and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rabbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disagreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rabbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!
Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana: Just as you say that three times he must give a sign with his head, must one equally hear his voice three times? He said to him, hearing his voice once, giving a sign with his head three times.
Rabbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rabbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: If he has understanding for the past, he should have understanding for the future; if he has no understanding for the past, he would not have understanding for the future! Rabbi Eudaimon said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated so: “When was this said? When he explained it in his regular state. But if he was paralyzed by sickness, once is enough.”
Who states “the deaf-mute?” Not Rabbi Judah, since it was stated: “Rabbi Judah said, it happened that the sons of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada were all deaf-mutes and all purities in Jerusalem were handled by them. They said to him, because purities do not need thought and may be produced by a deaf-mute, an insane, and a minor. But heaves and tithes need thought and do not become invalidated by absent-mindedness.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi La: Thought is not written in regard to them, only watching.
The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rabbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rabbi Abun said, what Rabbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rabbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rabbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.
“If he is sometimes insane and sometimes healthy, when he is insane he is insane in all regards, when healthy he is normal in all regards.” A case came before Samuel who said, when he is of sound mind he should deliver the divorce document; one must investigate following Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish; as Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, when he is of even mind; that is as Samuel acted. Following Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish who said, only if he is of sound mind he may deliver the divorce document; “make me healthy and let me live!”Isaiah 38:16
Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rabbi Judah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future? Rabbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice fruits, if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future.
“You”Numbers 18:28 excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Did we not state: “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but did we not state: “Orphans dependent on a homeowner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rabbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell movables to feed them but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan.
“‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave. Let us hear from the following: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rabbi Hoshaiah state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his tevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rabbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner. This does not follow Rabbi Yose, since Rabbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person.
Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “You, also you,”Numbers 18:28 to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rabbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rabbi Zeira said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaiah objects: Does the baraita support Rabbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rabbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: An Israelite who said to a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand,” and this Levite went and made it heave of the tithe for other produce but the Israelite went and gave it to another Levite, the first one has only a complaint on him. That is, if he handed it over before the first Levite made it heave. But not if this one made it before that one handed it over. Parallel to this Mishnah: “If he terminated: if he terminated before he gave heave, his heave is not heave. But if he terminated after he gave heave, his heave is heave.” All this follows: From the moment he said, you have a kor of tithe in my hand, he made him his agent and it turns out that he was tithing with the permission of the Israelite. One may also explain it following Rabbi Yose, as “Rabbi Yose said: If the owner gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.”
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: An Israelite who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rabbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rabbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rabbi Issa asked before Rabbi Joḥanan, is that following Rabbi Yose, for “Rabbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.
Who needs this? Rabbi Yose! Which statement of Rabbi Yose? What we had stated there: “He who did read the Shemaʿ and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rabbi Yose! For which statement of Rabbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shemaʿ and does not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rabbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rabbi Yose’s. Rabbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rabbi Yose disagree only about Shemaʿ since there it is written: “hear!,” but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rabbi Yose’s,” it is the same for all commandments of the Torah. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? “Bend your ear to His commandments and keep all His basic laws”Exodus 15:26; your ears should hear what your mouth says.
Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rabbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rabbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rabbi Yose.
There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “So they should hear and learn.”Deuteronomy 31:12 So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “So they should learn,”Deuteronomy 31:12 so they should teach. Rabbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rabbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rabbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say: “he shall say,”Deuteronomy 25:8 “she shall say.”Deuteronomy 25:7, 9 We also have stated: “A ‘deaf person’ mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rabbi Jonah, for Rabbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rabbi are no principles.
It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meir: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of the rabbis: “Your heave will be credited to you.”Numbers 18:27 Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for a Gentile, and he may give heave! Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi La: “You should not carry guilt because of it.”Numbers 18:32 He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt, and he may give heave! And did not Rabbi Hoshaiah state that Gentiles have no “thought”? That is for preparation, here we talk about heave.
Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Kahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rabbi Judah, for Rabbi Judah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rabbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Burnt offerings and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rabbi Yudan objected: His produce is tevel from the Torah but he cannot free his tevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rabbi Judah who says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rabbi Meir is of the opinion: “From all your tithes,”Numbers 18:28 that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Kahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish say, one is guilty. The statement of Kahana disagrees since Rabbi Judah frees his tevel as biblical law. We can say Kahana is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.
Mishnah
2 One may not give olives as heave for oil nor grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say they contain their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.
Halakhah
There, we stated: “One does not give heave from finished for unfinished,” and here you say so? Rabbi Illa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because of robbing the tribe. What does “because of robbing the tribe” mean? Rabbi Ḥanania said, because of the exertion. Think about it, if there was a grain of rice? People willingly will pound something. Think about it, if it were in ears? So far goes our question. Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Mana did not say so but he wanted to give heave proportional to the oil and gave only proportional to olives. Think about it, if he gave proportional to the oil? Now he did so, another time he will not do so. In addition, his neighbor will see him and say, this one wants to give a lot but I do not want to give a lot.
Ḥizqiah said, they mentioned only olives for oil and grapes for wine, hence not for any other produce. Rabbi Joḥanan said, not only olives for oil and grapes for wine but also any other produce. The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even immediately.
Rabbi Ḥananiah, Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rabbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rabbi Zeira said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be,” what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free tevel? Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be,” what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rabbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.
There, we have stated: “One may not give heave from impure for pure produce.” It was stated in the name of Rabbi Yose: “If he gave heave from impure for pure produce, what he did is done.” What does Rabbi Yose say here? If there, where all is lost for the priests, he says that what he did is done, here, where not all is lost for the priests, so much more? It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say it contains their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.” Rabbi Yose contradicts himself. There he says, what he did is done; here he says, his heave is not heave. There, impurity is infrequent and people will not err to say that one may give heave from the impure on the pure produce. But olives for oil and grapes for wine is frequent; if you say so, one will say that one may give heave of olives for oil and grapes for wine.
Mishnah
3 One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.
Halakhah
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah: “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.”Deuteronomy 14:27 You must give him from what you have while he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal.
Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and ownerless property all have the same rule. Did one not already state everything? Thus you have to understand the Mishnah: One may not give from produce one third ripe for produce not yet one third ripe, and when he gave heave, it is not heave. For Ḥizqiah it is a point of contention, for Rabbi Joḥanan it is everybody’s opinion.
Mishnah
4 Five categories of persons should not give heave but if they gave, their heave is heave. The mute, the drunk, the naked person, the blind, and a man who had an emission of semen should not give heave but if they gave, their heave is heave. One gives heave neither by measure, nor by weight, nor by count. But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted. One does not give heave in a measuring basket or box, but one may give in them a half or a third. One should not give half a seah of heave in a seah vessel because half of it is a standard measure.
Halakhah
“Some of these rules are because of the benediction, some because the persons are unable to give from the best. The mute, the naked person, and the man who had an emission because of the benediction, the blind and the drunk because they cannot give from the best.”
Abba bar Rav Huna said, one who drank wine should not pray but if he did pray, his prayer is a supplication. A drunk should not pray but if he did pray, his prayer is blasphemy. What is one who drank wine? Someone who drank a quartarius; a drunk is one who drank more. There, it is said if he cannot speak before a king. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Assi: May a drunk recite Grace? He said to him: “When you will eat and be satisfied, then you must praise,”Deuteronomy 8:10 even if you are sleepy. The question is only, may he recite the Shemaʿ? Abba bar Avin said, a pious person asked Elijah, may he be remembered for the good, may a naked person recite the Shemaʿ? He said to him: “He should not see anything indecent among you,”Deuteronomy 23:14 an indecent word. Ḥizqiah stated: both for reciting Grace and reading the Shemaʿ.
There, we have stated: “One who counts is praiseworthy, he who measures is better, and he who weighs is the best of the three.” And here, you say so? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, here for the Great Heave, there for the heave of the tithe. We have stated so: “Eliezer ben Gimel says, from where that one does not give heave by measurement, weight, or count? The verse says: ‘Your heave will be thought of for you’Numbers 18:27. You give heave by thought, you do not give heave by measurement, weight, or count. Just as this is for the Great Heave, so it is for the heave of the tithe.”
Did we not state: “But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted”? Rabbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “A person may measure his tevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by measure. A person may weigh his tevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not weigh by weight. A person may count his tevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by count.”
Mishnah
5 One does not give oil as heave on crushed olives, nor wine on pressed grapes. If one did, it is heave and he has to give another heave. The first one creates demaʿ by itself and one has to pay the fifth but not the second. One may give oil as heave for olives being pickled and wine for grapes to be made into raisins. If one gave oil as heave for table olives, or olives for table olives, or wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes, when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave. One does not give heave from finished produce for unfinished, or from unfinished for finished, or from unfinished for unfinished. If heave was given, it is heave.
Halakhah
There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, so that purification water does not become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or breaching the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “If one gave heave of olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.
What would Rabbi Yose say here? Since Rabbi Meir takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rabbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave a second time, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rabbi Meir takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rabbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!
There we have stated: “Rabbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rabbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rabbi Yose’s! For Rabbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first heave no longer exists but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.
It was stated: “The second heave should not be eaten until one takes from it heaves and tithes.” What is the status of the first? From what was stated: “If he came back and made the first olives into oil or the grapes into wine, he gives it a name and does not have to give a second heave.” That means that he has to give a name to his tithes.
We have stated after this: “One does not give heave from finished produce for unfinished;” there it is for the past, therefore not to start, and here even to start? If you say, is this different from when it is finished, did we not state: “Dried pomegranate kernels, raisins, and carob from when he made an orderly heap”? Rabbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar: From finished product on unfinished is only forbidden from threshing floor and wine or oil press.
What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rabbi Joḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rabbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rabbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”
Rabbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rabbi Hillel: We have stated in support of the statement of Rabbi Hoshaiah: “If one gave heave of olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” And we have stated: “If one gave oil as heave for table olives, olives for table olives, wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave.” Because he changed his mind! Therefore, if he did not change his mind he has to give a second heave.
Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing floor.”Numbers 18:27 From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it. What is the reason?: “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel, so that you will not die.”Numbers 18:32 Will one be whipped for its tevel as biblical law? Rabbi Ashian in the name of Rabbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its tevel as biblical law, as we have stated there: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce, like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor,” does this not mean after smoothing? That implies that one is not whipped for its tevel as biblical law.
Mishnah
1 One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap of grain. If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other. Rabbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error, his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has tevel tithe which he continually uses to give, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rabbi Judah says, if he had known of it earlier, even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten. He who plants on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.
Halakhah
“One does not give heave from pure produce,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing floor and what was drawn off from the winepress.”Numbers 18:27 Since for threshing floor and winepress it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure, even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself.”
Everything teaches for itself and for others, the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rabbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest;”Numbers 18:28 it should be given to Aaron in his status as priest. Kahana said: “From its best, the sanctified part from it;”Numbers 18:29 take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? “From all of your tithes,”Numbers 18:28 one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce.
Heave of the tithe is taken from pure produce for pure, from impure for impure, from pure for impure, but not from impure for pure. Rabbi Neḥemiah says, just as it may not be taken from impure for pure, so it may not be taken from impure for impure. Rabbi Neḥemiah agrees in the case of demai. That is, if he has from the same kind. If he does not have anything from the same kind, let us hear from the following: Rabbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya went with Rabbi Zeira to Ḥammat Gader. He bought him a roll and wanted to put it in order from one day to the next. He said to him: We do not have to worry about a single opinion! Can you say that he had from the same kind?
“In truth;” Rabbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.
“If a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part;” but if part of it becomes impure is not all of it impure? The Mishnah deals with the case that they are connected only by fruit juice. But will it not be cut into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected.
“And similarly for a bunch of vegetable.” The Mishnah deals with the case that it became impure as a bunch but when the single stalks were impure and he bound them together, this does not apply. But will it not be split and made into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected. What is the situation if a bundle became impure, he unbound it and bound it again?
Should we have stated only fig cake and neither bunch nor heap? If we had stated about fig cake and not bunch we would have said he may give heave for the fig cake which is all one body but not for the bunch which is not one body. So it is necessary to state also “bunch.” If we had stated bunch not heap, we would have said he may give heave for the bunch because it is all held together but not for the heap which is not held together in one piece. So it is necessary to state fig cake, necessary to state bunch, and necessary to state heap.
Since we stated: “If there were two fig cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain,”Numbers 18:27 etc.? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons or squash.
If there were two fig cakes, one partially impure and one partially pure, may one give heave from one for the other? If he had two heaps, and from both of them he had given part of heaves and tithes, may he give heave from one for the other? The students of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and he said to them: “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.”Ecclesiastes 4:5 Rabbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave from one for the other.
“If somebody brought many kinds in a box, cabbage on top and cabbage on the bottom but something else in between, he may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.” That means, if there is no empty space. But if there is empty space he may give heave or tithe from one for the other. “The entire house of the wine press is one.” The entire threshing house is one. It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, only if the main threshing place is in the middle. So far this is for wheat; it is the same even for stubbles, even for straw.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Was impure produce between them? He said to him, is that biting? The colleagues asked before Rabbi Yose: If there was a blanket between them? He said to them, that is the case of the five sacks, as it was stated: “Five sacks on the threshing floor, one does not give heave and tithes from one for the other.”
It was stated: “Rabbi Illai says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than the width of an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than the width of an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off the froth and the seeds formed lumps. But if it became impure before he siphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rabbi Tabi, Rabbi Joshia the son of Rabbi Yannai: Practice follows Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Ḥuna, Rabbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rabbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.
There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rabbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of tevul yom. Rabbi Ila said, since tevulei yom may be present around wine presses. Rabbi Yose said, a tevul yom has no touch for tevel.
It was stated: “Rabbi Judah said, about what was this said? About Great Heave which must be given from what is earmarked. But for the heave of the tithe, everything is supposed to be whole. If he gave Great Heave and heave of the tithe together, it is not whole.” Judah ben Rabbi said, he certainly did not want to overstep the words of the Torah in giving heave of the tithe before the Great Heave. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Did we not state that “one may not give heave from impure produce for pure”? Think about it, when he did it and said, I did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah! Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, if you say so, you let him flee from a minor sin to a major one! Ṭevel is a deadly sin, but an impure person who ate pure food oversteps a positive commandment.
It was stated in the name of Rabbi Yose: “If somebody gave heave from impure for pure produce, whether it was in error or intentionally, what he did is done.” Rabbi Phinehas asked before Rabbi Assi: There, it is when he thought that it was pure when he had known that it was impure, but he was of the opinion that one may give heave from impure for pure produce? He said to him, that is so, Rabbi holds with Rabbi Judah. But for Rabbi Yose it would not make any difference.
Our Mishnah is about large vessels, but with small vessels one may use a ruse and immerse them, as Rabbi Hoshaiah had stated: “A person may fill an impure vessel from the cistern as a ruse and immerse it.” Also, we have stated: “If his pail or garment fell into the cistern, one may use this as a ruse and immerse them.” Two Amoraim, one says one may use a ruse for vessels impure in original impurity; but the other one says only for vessels impure in derivative impurity. The one who said in derivative impurity objected to the one who said in original impurity: Even on weekdays, would it not need sundown? He said to him, if he wants to use them in purity for profane food.
Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman washes a cup here, a bowl there, a dish there; it turns out that her entire house was wetted on the Sabbath.
Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally,” when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally,” when it is forbidden, “intentionally,” when it is equally forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rabbi Meir, in public following Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rabbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rabbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.
“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden, one that deteriorates the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish that improves the more it shrinks? Cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rabbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of turnips and leeks as dishes that improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose: My father came home and found eggs and forbade them, hot water and permitted it. Rabbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like ḥizrar apples and they tasted delicious like sweet bread.
It was stated: “A woman should not fill a pot with ʿassasiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rabbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Mana said, that is correct, did not Rabbi Yose say, “He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether planting was unintentional or intentional. Rabbi Judah says, it is the other way around. In the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out, on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether planting was unintentional or intentional because the profit of the Sabbath is forbidden to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is counted. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; can it be explained for counting? But you have to say because of suspicion; they fined for the unintentional because of the intentional.
Mishnah
2 One does not give heave from one species for another species; if he gave, his heave is no heave. All kinds of wheat are one. All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other. At a place where there is a priest one gives from the best, but where there is no priest he gives from what is durable. Rabbi Judah says, one always gives from the best. One gives a small whole onion as heave but not half a large onion. Rabbi Judah says it is not so, one rather gives half a large onion. Similarly, Rabbi Judah said one gives onions of town people as heave for rural ones but not rural ones for those of town people because they are city-dwellers’ food.
Halakhah
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah: “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain.”Numbers 18:12 Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.
“All kinds of wheat are one.” It is needed since it applies even from white wheat on brown wheat and vice versa.
“All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other.” It was stated: “One gives as heave fresh figs for dried figs; dried figs go by count. Dried figs for fresh figs by volume, but fresh figs for dry figs do not go by volume, nor dry figs for fresh figs by count. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, baskets of fresh and dried figs are all one kind and one gives heave and tithes from one for the other. Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said, my father used to take ten dried figs from the drying place for ninety fresh figs in the container.” Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to say, you consider the shriveled ones as if they had swelled and you take the baskets as they are. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both say that swollen shrinks but shrunk does not swell; one would have to take large baskets for fresh figs. Rabbi Aḥa said to them, that is what your teacher Rabbi Ilai thought about it.
There, we have stated: “Profane food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass, or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing, the volume of an olive rejected or overdue sacrifice, or of fat, are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There, we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rabbi Meir! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen dough as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken dough as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rabbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rabbi Joḥanan, and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw rice corresponding to the cooked. Rabbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.
Mishnah
3 Also, one may give oil olives as heave for pickling olives but not pickling olives for oil olives, uncooked wine for cooked wine but not cooked wine for uncooked wine. This is the rule: All that is kilaim with another kind, one may not give as heave one for the other, not even good for bad. But all that is not kilaim with another kind, one may give the good as heave for the bad but not the bad for the good; if he gave bad for good, his heave is heave except for zĕwānîn for wheat because they are not food. Green melons and sweet melons are one kind; Rabbi Judah says two kinds.
Halakhah
Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is Rabbi Judah’s. “Rabbi Judah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Judah inverted his reasoning. Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Judah did not invert his reasoning, there for the priest, here for the owners. Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Judah inverted his reasoning but Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Judah did not invert his reasoning, there for the priest, here for the owners, it follows that Rabbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rabbi Immi said, Rabbi Joḥanan did not state that.
Rabbi Abun bar Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Hila: “You should not carry sin because of it.”Numbers 18:32 Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid.
Hence, something that is food is permitted.
Our Mishnah is from Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine for vinegar but not from vinegar for wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rabbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one for the other.” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, it seems that Rabbi would agree as to biblical law. What is Rabbi’s reason? If you say so, that one may give heave of wine for vinegar, he will think that one is permitted to give vinegar for wine.
“Green melons and sweet melons are one kind; Rabbi Judah says two kinds.” Rabbi Judah keeps to his opinion, the rabbis keep to their opinion, as we have stated: “Green melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other. Rabbi Judah says, they are kilaim.”
Mishnah
1 If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a watermelon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave, but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second heave creates demaʿ by itself, nor does one have to pay the fifth. If one of them fell into profane food it does not create demaʿ. If the other one fell into another place it does not create demaʿ. If both together fell into one place they create demaʿ relative to the smaller one.
Halakhah
“If one gives a green melon,” etc. We understand a watermelon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter? Rabbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food. Rabbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure, one owes a fifth for it, and one whips for it outside the walls, if one made an ʿeruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver? There, Rabbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts.
It was stated in the name of Rabbi Yose: “Green melon can be bitter only inside. What can he do? He adds to the outer part and gives heave.” Rabbi Benjamin ben Levi asked: Do the Sages disagree with him about a subject that can be checked? They disagree about the possibility of checking.
“If one gave an amphora as heave and it turned out to be uncovered, or a watermelon and it turned out to have holes, it is heave and heave should be given a second time.” Rabbi Judah ben Pazi, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: They forbade only when it was found to have a hole; therefore, from the start it is forbidden to give it as heave. Rabbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rabbi Yose: Is this reasonable only if they saw it making the hole? He said to him: Would one know whether it poured poison into it? The colleagues asked before Rabbi Yose: What is the difference between that and the impure? He said to them: The impure is unchanged, so is that which caused impurity. But here, it is dust.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabbi. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It follows Rabbi. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rabbi Yose: Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, between Rabbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rabbi, and Rabbi Jonah said, including Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, between Rabbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rabbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rabbi.
Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon, practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Between Rabbi Simeon and Rabbi Judah, practice follows Rabbi Judah, and one does not have to mention that between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah, practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Abba bar Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon, practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Between Rabbi Simeon and Rabbi Judah, practice follows Rabbi Judah, and one does not have to mention that between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Judah, and Rabbi Simeon practice follows Rabbi Judah. From this you infer that between Rabbi Simeon and Rabbi Judah, practice follows Rabbi Judah.
How does he handle it? He gives both of them to the priest; the priest pays for one of them. Which one does he pay for, the larger or the smaller one? Since we have stated: “they create demaʿ relative to the smaller one,” this implies that he pays for the larger one.
Mishnah
2 Partners who gave heave one after the other, Rabbi Akiva says both of their heaves are heave. But the Sages say, the heave of the first one only is heave. Rabbi Yose says, if the first one gave the full measure of heave, then his heave is heave, but if the first one did not give the full measure of heave, then the heave of the second is heave. Where was this said? When he did not say anything. But if he empowered a member of his family, his slave, or his slave girl, their heave is heave. In case he revoked, if he revoked before heave was given, his heave is not heave. But if he revoked after heave was given, his heave is heave. Workers have no right to give heave except for those who press grapes because they make the wine press impure.
Halakhah
Where do we hold? If they assigned, even Rabbi Akiva agrees. If they did not assign, even the rabbis will agree. But we assume they were silent. Rabbi Akiva says, if they are silent they do not assign, but the rabbis hold that by being silent they will assign.
In the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the seah of the first one is half tevel and half heave containing undistributed tithes. The seah of the second is half heave and half total tevel. That does not seem necessary: may the half seah of the second free the half seah of the first? Let us hear from the following: Ariston brought produce, left some in the sack, and gave heave. The case came before Rabbi Yose; he said it is a standing assumption that he gave heave for everything.
Does one understand this according to Biblical rules, or according to the rules of his colleagues? If you take it as referring to the biblical measure, Rabbi Yose cannot agree with the rabbis. If you take it as referring to the measure of his colleagues, Rabbi Yose agrees with the rabbis.
Does this not disagree with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish? As Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, nobody may revoke his agency by words. Explain it that he said, go and fix it to the North and the agent went and fixed it to the South.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof. But have we not stated: “If workers gave heave from a vat, their heave is not heave. But if the vat was small or if the owners or others stir it, their heave is heave.” Because others stir it, but if others do not stir it, their heave would not be heave! What is this? One statement for wine, the other for oil. But are not wine and oil the same? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not.
It was stated: “When does one start to give heave from grapes? From the moment one went over it warp and woof. When does one start to make them impure? The House of Shammai say, after one removed second tithe, the House of Hillel say, after one removed first tithe. Rabbi Yose said, practice should follow the House of Shammai but the public follow the House of Hillel. Rabbi Simeon says, the words of the House of Shammai were reasonable in the time of the Temple, the words of the House of Hillel are reasonable in the present time. But the Sages say unlike either of them, but that one removes heave and the heave of the tithe; then one may make it impure immediately.”
“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaim state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaim state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.
“Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah said, if he wishes he may bring olives, put them under the pounding stone, and tread on it. They said to him, olives cannot be compared to grapes. Grapes are soft and release the wine, olives are hard and do not release the oil.”
Mishnah
3 He who says the heave of this heap is contained in it, the tithes are contained in it and the heave of this tithe is contained in it, Rabbi Simeon says he gave it a name but the Sages say, only if he said in its Northern or Southern part. Rabbi Eleazar Ḥisma says, he who says, the heave of this heap is from it for itself, gave it a name. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he who says, one tenth of this tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, gave it a name. One who gives heave before First Fruits, First Tithe before heave, Second Tithe before First, even though he transgresses a prohibition what he did is done since it is said: “Your fullness you should not make follow your demaʿ..”Exodus 22:29 From where that First Fruits should precede heave since either one is called heave and first. First Fruits should precede since they are due before everything else, heave before First Tithe because it is first, First Tithe before the Second because it contains “first.”
Halakhah
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as demaʿ and so Rabbi Simeon says it is sanctified as demaʿ.
So far if he says “contained in it.” What if he said “in it”? Let us hear from the following: “The second tithe in this property shall be redeemed by those coins” and he did not specify, Rabbi Simeon said he gave it its name but the Sages say he did not do anything unless he says, in its Northern part, or in its Southern part.” That means there is no difference between “contained in it” and “in it.”
The words of the Sages. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Eudaimon from Haifa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “Your heave will be thought of;”Numbers 18:27 “you shall lift.”Numbers 18:26 Just as thought has to be definite, so your giving heave has to be definite.
If he said, the heave of this and that heap should be in this one; Rabbi Joḥanan said, the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends. Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar asked: If a seah of heave fell into a heap and he said, the heave of this heap is contained in it, does the heave of the heap end at that seah?
“If he said, the heave of this heap shall be in its Northern part, the Northern half is demaʿ, the words of Rabbi;” he takes one half. “But the Sages say, like a X;” one quarter. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he takes its heave from the Northernmost part;” one eighth.
What if the heave of two heaps was given together? Rabbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as demaʿ, but Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, they are not forbidden.
Rabbi Hoshaiah bar Shammai said, if he had before him two seot and one heap and said, one of the seot is heave for this heap, he sanctified them and it is not known which one is sanctified. If he had before him two heaps and one seah and said, this is heave for one of the heaps, one is put in order but we do not know which one.
Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rabbi Zeira said, they objected before Rabbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rabbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rabbi Joḥanan explain: “Your fullness you should not make follow your demaʿ.”Exodus 22:29 He explains it for removal.
When does he transgress? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says, from the start; Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac says, at the end. What difference comes between them? The burning of the heap is between them; for Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba he transgressed, for Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac he did not transgress.
Rabbi Samuel bar Abba asked: First Tithe which he preceded to ears, does he transgress or is he transgressing only the right order?
They stated before Rabbi Abbahu: “Heave does not interfere with First Fruits.” He said to them, this is from Abba Palaemon. Rabbi Yose asked, which statement of Abba Palaemon? Rabbi Mana said to him, I heard my father stating: “First fruits in his right hand, heave in his left hand.” Some Tannaim state, “he transgresses,,” some Tannaim state, “he does not transgress.” He who says he transgresses, the rabbis; he who says he does not transgress, Abba Palaemon.
Mishnah
4 If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering, that I will not enter this house and he says that one, that I will have no enjoyment from this one and he says from that one, he did not say anything unless his statement and his intention be equal.
Halakhah
There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” Rabbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and he says “fire sacrifice,” he dedicated it. Rabbi Yose said, we consider only if he intended to dedicate but he erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rabbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rabbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion.
It was stated: “With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind, the verse says: “To articulate.”Leviticus 5:4 But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obliged until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “Everyone who volunteers in his mind,”Exodus 35:5 that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says: “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,”Deuteronomy 23:23 that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “everyone who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.
Mishnah
5 The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications. Rabbi Judah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates demaʿ and one is obliged to a fifth for it, but Rabbi Simeon frees from the obligation.
Halakhah
“If he brought heave from his house one treats it as tevel and Great Heave, the words of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as tevel and First Tithe, the words of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as tevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries that maybe he inverted the order.
“The Gentile’s heave creates demaʿ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rabbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rabbi Zeira said, I said this before Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rabbi Simeon will agree. Rabbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rabbi Simeon, does he free his tevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rabbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, leftovers, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free from punishment, the words of Rabbi Yose, but Rabbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about demaʿ. They found stated: It is all the same.
Mishnah
1 If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes, he takes from this its own heave or tithes but not for another place. Rabbi Meir says, he may even take it for another place.
Halakhah
“If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes,” etc. Our Mishnah is said in case he separated and it is his intention to separate more. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira, our Mishnah is said if he did not say anything. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yudan: Do they disagree? He said to him, if he did not say anything, it is as if it were his intention to separate more.
What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all tevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult: If he took produce with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all tevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took produce with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is tevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is tevel. If he added, both together came into his hand.
Also if he is in error it is so. If he thought that two seot were due but he owed only one, Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: That extra seah which he separated he gives as heave for another place. But did we not state: “but not for another place”? Explain it if he increased the heave. It is acceptable if he increased the heave, but what about tithes? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish did not state about tithes. But the reason of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish must be that, since we say that all the tevel is now in his hands, what is the difference between taking from it its own heave or that for another place?
That is, if most of the heap was put in order. If most of the heap was not put in order, there is disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rabbi Joḥanan. As Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Ḥizqiah, tevel becomes voided by plurality, but Rabbi Joḥanan said, tevel does not become voided by plurality. Since it was his intention to give, each single grain of wheat was labeled at its place. Some want to explain following Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, that he cannot separate either for itself or for another place. This parallels the following: If there were before him two heaps and from each of them he took part of heave or tithes, may he take heave or tithe from one for the other? The students of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and he said to them: “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.”Ecclesiastes 4:5 Rabbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.
Mishnah
2 If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, one may separate another eight seot and eat them, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, he separates only according to the computation.
Halakhah
Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: They treated it following the rules of a worker who does not trust his employer.
The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave becomes invalid. If the heave was burned, when the produce will be consumed, the heave will retroactively have been sanctified.
Mishnah
3 The rate of heave: A generous person one in forty, the House of Shammai say, one in thirty. Average, one in fifty, and stingy, one in sixty. If somebody gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more. When he added, the addition is subject to tithes. If it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he has to add in his usual way, by measure, weight, or count. Rabbi Judah says, even from what is not earmarked.
Halakhah
It is written: “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of wheat, and you shall take sixths from an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.”Ezekiel 45:13 I could think he may give heave one thirtieth from wheat but one sixtieth from barley. The verse says: “All heave,”Ezekiel 44:30 that all heaves should be equal. Samuel says, add the sixth to the sixths, it turns out that he gives heave one in forty. “Average, one in fifty.” Rabbi Levi said, it is written: “From the half of the Children of Israel take one part in fifty.”Numbers 31:30 All you take at another place shall be like this; just as this is one in fifty, so what you take at another place shall be like this. “And stingy, one in sixty,” as it is written: “And you shall take a sixth from an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.”
“The House of Shammai say, one in thirty.” “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.” Average, one in forty, following Samuel. Stingy, one in sixty following Rabbi Levi. As Rabbi Levi bar Ḥina said, he who takes out his tithes following the rules does not lose. What is the reason? “The ephah shall be one tenth of a ḥomer, its measure shall be from the ḥomer.”Ezekiel 45:11 For what do you need that? As we say, “if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more;” so the House of Shammai say, if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Issi said, Bar Qappara did not state so, but “if it turned out to be between one in fifty and one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.”
Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to free his heap. But if he did not do it in order to free his heap, even one on one.
Kahana said, “in his usual way.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, even one for one. But did we not state, “in his usual way”? That he should not give less. Rabbi Eleazar said, in his usual way of measurement, but if he wants to add, even one for one.
Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rabbi Judah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree to take from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?
How far does a man free his tevel by the word of the Torah? Rabbi Jonathan instructed: One in a hundred like heave of the tithe. Rabbi Joḥanan asked him, from whom did you hear this? He said, from arguments of the colleagues I understood this, although Rabbi Yannai said, even one in a thousand. Rabbi Mana said, there is no measure since it is written: “The first of your grain, cider, and oil;”Deuteronomy 18:4 any amount.
Mishnah
4 If somebody said to his agent: go and give heave, he gives heave following the intentions of the owner. If the agent does not know the intentions of the owner, he gives average heave, one in fifty. If he diminished by ten or added ten, his heave is heave, but if he intended to exceed the owner’s intention by even one, his heave is not heave. If somebody increases heave, Rabbi Eliezer says, up to one tenth like the heave of the tithe. The excess he should make heave of the tithe but not for another place. Rabbi Ishmael says, half profane and half heave. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say more, but he must retain some profane produce.
Halakhah
So far, if he said to him, go and give heave following my intentions. If he knew the intentions of the owner but the owner did not tell him: go and give heave following my intentions? Let us hear from the following: “If the agent does not know the intentions of the owner;” therefore, if he knows even if he did not tell him, it is as if he had told him.
Rabbi Abun bar Kahana said: If someone diminished by ten it is heave, and if he added ten it is heave. This does not apply to the profane produce since diminution and addition are not equal. How is that? If he used to give heave one in fifty, if he gives heave one in forty he makes him lose six quarters. If he gives heave one in sixty, he earns him four quarters.
Here you say, his heave is heave, but there you say, his heave is not heave! Rabbi Ḥanina ben Rabbi Hillel said, in one case he intended to diminish, in the other to add.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: There, we have stated: “If he said to him, give them one piece, but he said, take two each, and they took three each, all committed larceny;” but here you say so? He said to him, there the agency of the owner stopped after the first piece, but here each single grain of wheat is under the agency of the owner. What is the difference? If there were before him two heaps, one put in order by his intention, the other put in order not by his intention.
Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Rabbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as demaʿ, so Rabbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as demaʿ.
In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan, it is simple. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is tevel for tithes. Therefore, he must declare: “The excess he should make heave of the tithe for another place.” In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, it is difficult. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is tevel for everything. But we have stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe,” he should make it heave of the tithe for another place. Ḥizqiah holds with what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe for another place.”
What is the reason of Rabbi Ishmael? “The beginning of your grain,”Deuteronomy 18:4 it is sufficient for the beginning to be like the grain. From where that he did not do anything unless he left some remainder? “From the beginning,”Numbers 15:21 not all the beginning.
Mishnah
5 For three periods one calibrates the measuring box, for early fruits, late fruits, and in the middle of the summer. He who counts is praiseworthy, he who measures is more praiseworthy, and he who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.
Halakhah
He is praiseworthy relative to whom? Rabbi Huna said, praiseworthy relative to one who estimates heave. Rabbi Ḥinena the son of Rabbi Hillel said, does the Mishnah say so? “He who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.” Rabbi Ḥinena said, explain it “among the three” and it does not imply anything.
Mishnah
6 Rabbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 101. Rabbi Joshua says by 100 and more. This “and more” has no measure; Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes demaʿ.
Halakhah
From where that they are not lifted? Rabbi Jonah said, it is written: “From all its best 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, one sixth of what makes demaʿ; practice follows him.
Mishnah
7 Rabbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rabbi Eliezer forbids. Rabbi Akiva says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another. How is this? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent and Rabbi Joshua lenient. And so Rabbi Eliezer is lenient and Rabbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rabbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rabbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers.
Halakhah
Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that if black figs fell into white ones, one may eat the white ones.
“White ones lift the black.” Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Eliezer answered Rabbi Joshua thus: Do white ones lift the black? His words say, when it is known what fell in they lift one another. Kahana said, they do not lift. In the opinion of Kahana, what is the difference between Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva? When he had known but forgot. In the opinion of Rabbi Joshua he lifts, in the opinion of Rabbi Akiva he does not lift. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That is only if one black one fell into two white ones, that it may be disregarded in a plurality. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Mana: Would it not be reasonable to say into three so that if one of them is lost there still will be two? He said to him, that is also my opinion.
Bar Pedaiah said, he grinds and makes it permitted. Even though Bar Pedaiah said mixing applies only to oil and wine, he agrees here that they may be mixed.
The words of the rabbis disagree. Kahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the demaʿ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 which were profane. Rabbi Abbahu said, thus did Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish answer Rabbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is to be taken lightly; here also it is to be taken lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose, both in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.
If there were 20 figs before him and one fig fell into them and was not recognizable among them and then one of them was lost; Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, this doubt disappears in the plurality; Rabbi Joḥanan said, all become subject to proof. Rabbi Joḥanan agrees that if he gave heave for them from another place or added to them from another place the doubt would disappear in the plurality.
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rabbi Zeira said, he said only “if they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.
Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Pedaiah: Heave if certain makes forbidden in 100, if it is in doubt in 50. Does that mean not in 60 or 70? Up to 50 it needs a plurality, more it does not need a plurality.
Rabbi Ḥuna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count.
Is Rabbi Eliezer stringent and Rabbi Joshua lenient in this case? Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is a disagreement of Tannaim: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted, if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; Rabbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rabbi Akiva says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”
“A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rabbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rabbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says, Rabbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rabbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rabbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaim. This supports him who says, the words of Rabbi Meir that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaim. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.
“If he pressed it but it is not known where he pressed it, everybody agrees that it may be lifted.” Rabbi Abin said, but each individual amphora must contain somewhat more than two pounds so it should have disappeared in a plurality.
Mishnah
8 One seah of heave which fell into the opening of a storage bin and congealed, Rabbi Eliezer says if the congealed part contains 100 seah it may be lifted by 101; Rabbi Joshua says, it should not be lifted but a seah of heave which fell into the opening of a storage bin one should compress. If this is so, why did they say, heave may be lifted in 101? If one does not know whether it was mixed in or where it fell. Two boxes, two storage bins, into one of which a seah of heave fell but it is not known into which one it fell, help to lift one another. Rabbi Simeon says, even if they are in two villages they help to lift one another. Rabbi Yose said: There came a case before Rabbi Akiva about 50 bundles of vegetables into which one bundle fell half of which was heave, and I said before him that it should be lifted, not that heave might be lifted in 51 but that there were 102 halves.
Halakhah
The reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is inverted: There, he says that the lower ones help to lift the upper, and here he says “if the congealed contains,” therefore not the bottom ones. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Kahana: The words of Rabbi Eliezer imply that they consider this as if he had added intentionally. Rabbi Hila, Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The words of Rabbi Eliezer imply that they consider it as a seah lifted from 100. In the opinion of Rabbi Assi, one is permitted to add, in the opinion of Kahana it is forbidden. If it congealed and then congealed a second time, in the opinion of Rabbi Assi it is permitted, in the opinion of Kahana it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rabbi Assi, even if there is no remainder, in the opinion of Kahana only if he left a remainder.
“Two boxes in two attics, two storage bins in one attic.” But not two storage bins in two attics. What is the difference between boxes and storage bins? Boxes are usually moved around, storage bins are not.
Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon: If two boxes were before him, in each one 50 seah, and one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which of them, if he wants to lift from any one of them he may do so, or he may lift half from this one and half from the other. Similarly, if there were two gatherings of water, each one containing 20 seah, and three log of drawn water fell into one of them but it is not known into which of them, if he wants to lift from any one of them its water collection he may do so, or he may lift half from this one and half from the other.
Rabbi Simon in the name of Bar Pedaiah: “If before him there were two boxes of fifty seah each; one seah of heave fell into one of them and it is known into which one it fell, then a second seah fell and it is not known into which it fell, one says that the second fell into the place of the first.” Why? Because one attaches the damage to the damaged. If in error he added to the known one and made the heave disappear, he lifts and makes it permitted. The second seah returns to be proven. It turns out that two seot may be lifted from 150 seah. “If there were two boxes of fifty seah each; one seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one it fell, then a second seah fell and it is known into which it fell, one does not say that the first fell into the place of the second.” If in error he added to one and made the heave disappear, he lifts and makes it permitted, but the second one remains forbidden until he would add to it in error.
If he said, what is below is heave, above all is profane, or what is below is all profane, above is heave, it depends on his opinion. Also for a miqweh it is the same: If he said, all water below is usable, above is unusable, or all water below is unusable, above is usable, it depends on his opinion.
You say, one may lift from boxes but not from storage bins. How is this? Two storage bins in two attics and a seah of heave fell into one of them, both are forbidden. If he added to one of them and made heave disappear in error, he lifts and makes permitted; the second bin, once he would accidentally add to it, will be permitted and does not need lifting since heave was already lifted.
It was stated: “If it is mixed, it may be lifted, unmixed it may not be lifted.” But did we not state: “Rabbi Yose said: There came a case before Rabbi Akiva about 50 bundles of vegetables into which one bundle fell half of which was heave, and I said before him that it should be lifted,” in that case it is unmixed and may be lifted! We want to say that if he resents the admixture, it cannot be lifted but if he does not resent the admixture, it may be lifted. How is that? An impure green melon which fell into 100 pure ones, since he does not resent the admixture, may be lifted, but in case they were prepared for impurity, because then he resents the admixture, it may not be lifted.
Mishnah
1 One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 seah of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to priests for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 seah of pure profane produce, Rabbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together.
Halakhah
“One seah of impure heave,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rabbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted ....” Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from tevel?
There, we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rabbi Yudan from Cappadocia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “For excellence.”Numbers 18:8 For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.
We understand that when pure it must be left to rot, but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan, should it not be burned? Rabbi Joḥanan is of the opinion of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift; but only if it is not usually mixed with other food. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen.
Did we not want to say that dedicated things have only their time and place? Rabbi Ḥanina said, explain it if that place was destroyed and he cannot even sell it for the price of wood.
This means, pure fell into pure, but pure into impure? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” According to Rabbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rabbi Yose said in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest;”Numbers 18:28 it should be given to Aaron in his status as priest. In the opinion of Kahana who said, take from its sanctifiable part, also here one should take from the sanctifiable part. Even though Kahana says there, take from its sanctifiable part, he agrees only in what he is required to give to the priest.
Crackers are about the size of halves of eggs.
Rabbi Simon says, Rabbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rabbi Zeira asked, may we not say that Rabbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rabbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from tevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Zeira is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rabbi Yose: Rabbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rabbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”
Crackers are about half of a seah.
Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab. And here he says so! Rabbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded.
Rabbi Abbahu said, all our days we were groping about this as with a blind man’s stick until we learned it from mathematical computation. How much is in a qab? 24 eggs. How much is in a seah? 96 eggs. One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.
The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation. A statement of Rabbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough. Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rabbi Joḥanan spoke to the future? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah.
Rabbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered meat; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered meat can never become carcass meat. Rabbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered meat to become carcass meat, but here profane produce may become heave. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, Rabbi Simon raised the question and Rabbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.
It was stated: “A seah of heave that fell into less than a hundred makes it demaʿ. One does not pay for it the amount and a fifth for another place nor from another place for this except by computation.” This is for substances which cannot be mixed. But for substances which can be mixed one goes after the plurality. If most of it is heave, it is heave, if most is profane, it is profane.
Mishnah
2 One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure heave can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure heave be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rabbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rabbi Eliezer says it creates demaʿ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it demaʿ and from the demaʿ fell into another place; Rabbi Eliezer says it creates demaʿ like certain heave but the Sages say, demaʿ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 profane and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rabbi Simeon permits it.
Halakhah
Rabbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rabbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a tevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Rabbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rabbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rabbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rabbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rabbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: Since pure heave, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure heave which is prohibited as positive commandment for priests.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any demaʿ.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rabbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a demaʿ. In the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rabbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.
Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement. Ḥilfai said on that of Rabbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert. But Rabbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100 or is one more lenient, following what Rabbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant?
It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally. But did we not state: “If it contained 40 seah, he added a seah and removed a seah, it is in order.” How far? Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, up to the larger part of the miqweh. And here you say so? There it was a plurality, you add to it and it is in order. But here, every single seah needs 100 seah. Rabbi Yose said, this means that anything becoming insignificant by biblical law is activated by its own kind to become forbidden.
Rabbi Simeon says, knowledge of it sanctifies; but the rabbis say, its lifting sanctifies it.
It was stated: One seah of heave that fell into one hundred, he says to the priest, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave demaʿ? Does firewood create demaʿ? Does he not in the end have to give it to another priest who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rabbi Judah bar Shalom who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest.
Mishnah
3 A seah of heave which fell into 100, if he milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into less than 100, if he milled it and it increased in volume, in proportion to the increase of the profane is the increase of heave, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the profane wheat was of better quality than the heave, it might be permitted. If a seah of heave fell into less than 100 and more profane fell into it later, if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden.
Halakhah
Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. 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. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.
It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rabbi Yose’s, since “Rabbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred.” Rabbi Zeira said, priests are accustomed to mill 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.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things, if one added against them in error, it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah: “if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about heave, he comes to tell you about all other things.
Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done, so one has a duty to instruct about actions that should not be done. Rabbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rabbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn, always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned. Rabbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so?
Mishnah
1 If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the priest may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israelite woman ate heave and then was married to a priest, ate the heave before a priest had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a priest had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.
Halakhah
“If somebody eats heave in error,” etc. It is written: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth.”Leviticus 22:14 That it and its fifth make five.
Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth. Rabbi Zeira said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty. Rabbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally.
If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally. Would Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish since Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell, he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish agrees in case he would complete it in the future.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who swallows heave vinegar is whipped. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who chews a wheat grain of heave is whipped. It was stated: He who chews a wheat grain of heave pays the principal but not the fifth; Rabbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ammi: The Sages agree with Rabbi about him who swallows heave vinegar after such tevel, that he pays principal and fifth because vinegar refreshes the spirit.
It was stated: If someone ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation. Rabbi Nathan says, Symmachus says, if inadvertently, what he did is done, intentionally, he did not do anything. There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from impure produce for pure.” It was stated in the name of Rabbi Yose, “if he gave heave from impure produce for pure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, what he did is done.” It turns out that the single opinion here is like the anonymous one there, and the single there like the anonymous here.
How is this? Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rabbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israelite poor and poor priests collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israelite poor sell theirs to priests for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”
It was stated: One does not use the complement of heave for payment of principal and fifth and for them one does not pay principal and fifth, it is not subject to ḥallah, and hands and the tevul yom do not make it unusable in the way they do not make profane unusable. Even Rabbi Simeon and Rabbi Yose agree with this.
“Although the priest may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate, the disagreement of Rabbi and Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon, as it is stated: “ ‘He shall give the holy food to the priest,’Leviticus 22:14 his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave.”
If the priest forgave and after that the Israelite owner ate, there is disagreement between Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a priest, Rabbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he pays to himself. Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish answered Rabbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the priest;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: “On its excrement shall be its burning.”Numbers 19:5 How do you understand this? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.
Rabbi Joḥanan follows Rabbi, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish would hold with Rabbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a priest; but for something he is not obligated to give to a priest, even Rabbi will agree since that is a Mishnah: “If he separated the redemption of a firstborn donkey and then it died, Rabbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation as for the five tetradrachmas of the human firstborn; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.” Rabbi Eliezer will agree about firstborn donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a priest, that he sanctified it when he separated it.
One who ate the heave of a ḥaver has to pay the ḥaver, one who ate the heave of an am haʾaretz has to pay the am haʾaretz. Does he then not deliver his pure food to an am haʾaretz? How does he do it, he gives both to a priest who is a ḥaver, takes the price of one of them and gives that to the priest who is an am haʾaretz. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, this follows him who says, its separation sanctifies. But for him who says, the delivery sanctifies, does it not need acquisition in any case? He said to them, he operates through the services of a third person.
If she did not manage to pay before she was divorced? Come and see, if she had so many tithes, would they not be hers? There tithes are defined but here the heave is still undefined. What compares to this? Firstborn of donkeys.
Mishnah
2 If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal. He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary. One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property, nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe, nor with dedicated food that was redeemed, for dedicated food cannot redeem dedicated food, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages permit the latter.
Halakhah
Now Rabbi Meir says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rabbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rabbi Meir said, the meal is the responsibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the responsibility of the workers. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, the exertion is between them. Rabbi Meir said, the exertion is the responsibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the responsibility of the workers. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his to sell. Does he not have to replace his purchase? If you hold with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rabbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of tevel.
Rabbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rabbi Zeira said, it is a decision of the verse: “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,”Leviticus 22:14 where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Kahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.
“Since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary.” For it was said: “He should repay double to his neighbor,”Exodus 22:9 but not to the Sanctuary.
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes? But we deal with growth of peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Ḥilfai’s question, since Ḥilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything.
Mishnah
3 Rabbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rabbi Akiva says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them. From the verse which Rabbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rabbi Akiva is restrictive, since it is said: “He hands over the consecrated food to the priest,”Leviticus 22:14 anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the priest,” the consecrated food he himself ate.
Halakhah
How is this? If he ate vegetable and repaid a dried fig, a dried fig and repaid dates, a blessing should come to him. If he ate first fruits, what can he repay? If he ate grapes, he repays wine, olives he repays oil. If he ate ḥallah, may he repay with produce not yet one-third ripe since produce not yet one-third ripe is subject to ḥallah? If he ate first fruits, may he repay with what is still connected to the ground since first fruits acquire their status while connected to the ground?
Rabbi Abin in the name of the rabbis from there: This means that one may not repay with produce from outside the Land. Even if you say one may repay, our Mishnah is from before Rabbi permitted the import of vegetables from outside the Land. He mentioned only green melons which are forbidden produce. But not permitted produce, because if you say so, does it not turn out that he buys himself an axe from Sabbatical money?
Mishnah
1 If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth. His payment is profane and if the priest wants to forgive this, he may forgive.
Halakhah
“If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. There, we have stated: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rabbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? “His guilt.”Deuteronomy 25:2 You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments: “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number of times because of his guilt.”Deuteronomy 25:2
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish holds with Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir said, he is flogged and pays. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Rabbi Meir learned from the slanderer. “And they shall fine him,”Deuteronomy 22:19 money; “they shall punish him,”Deuteronomy 22:18 flogging. But the rabbis say, the law of the slanderer is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: If he eats fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice! Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “Because of his guilt.”Deuteronomy 25:2 If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.
Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written: “The slayer of a living animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.”Leviticus 24:21 Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.
Rabbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.
Nathan bar Hoshaiah said, one speaks about a girl, the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? “Because of his guilt.”Deuteronomy 25:2 You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rabbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.”Deuteronomy 25:2 It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.
Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish holds with Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir says, he is flogged and he pays.
Rabbi Ḥinena said before Rabbi Mana: If Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish thought the entire Mishnayot were Rabbi Meir’s, he would call them “the words of Meir.” But is it not written: “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”Leviticus 22:14? But Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish follows his own opinion. Just as Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor,”Exodus 20:16 but this one was treated separately, “do to him what he intended to do to his brother,”Deuteronomy 19:19 to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of “no outsider shall eat holy food,”Leviticus 22:10 but this one was treated separately, “if somebody should eat holy food in error,”Leviticus 22:14 to force him to pay.
Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rabbi Meir that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rabbi Meir that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rabbi Meir that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rabbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.
Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rabbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rabbi Ezra objected before Rabbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging and cautioning for payment. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraim. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free: “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,”Leviticus 17:4 not on his employers.
In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish.
There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rabbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rabbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them. Rabbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rabbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started, so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rabbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.
Rabbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about prohibitions and extirpation? Rabbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rabbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: “Rabbi Tarfon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish! But for Rabbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rabbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rabbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.
According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, what is between these Tannaim and those rabbis? Rabbi Judan said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish is the one who said following Rabbi Meir, who said he is flogged and pays. Rabbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaim think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rabbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.
But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother died when he had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and the surviving brother came and raped her.
Mishnah
2 The daughter of a priest married to an Israelite who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning. If she married one of the ineligible, she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning. He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth. The payment is profane and if the priest wants to forgive it, he may forgive. This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the priest may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the priest wants to forgive, he may do so.
Halakhah
So is the Mishnah: If she commits adultery, her death is by burning.
What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? “If she desecrates her father’s house by prostitution,”Leviticus 21:9 one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by prostitution;” the one whose desecration is by prostitution, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? “A priest’s daughter,”Leviticus 21:9 under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rabbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated before Rabbi Zeira following Rabbi Ishmael: “She desecrates her father.”Leviticus 21:9 One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rabbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rabbi Ishmael, even if her desecration is by her son.
Did we not state: “Rabbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rabbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rabbi Joshua agrees. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rabbi Joshua agrees.
If he did not have occasion to pay before he was manumitted, he gives. If he had property about which his master had no power, he gives.
How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he clear of his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is clear of his robbery.
Mishnah
3 Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which box is heave and which one is profane, if one ate the contents of one of them, he is free. The contents of the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rabbi Meir; but Rabbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second box, he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane produce it would not make it demaʿ. The contents of the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rabbi Meir; but Rabbi Yose declares it free. If the contents of the second box fell into another place, they would not make it demaʿ. If both together fell into one place they would create demaʿ relative to the smaller one. If he sowed the contents of one of them, he is free. The contents of the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rabbi Meir; but Rabbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed the contents of both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.
Halakhah
One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one. One demaʿ and one not demaʿ, I say it fell into the one containing demaʿ. One contains enough for lifting and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second box was larger. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own opinion, here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.
“Two boxes, one of impure heave and one of pure profane grain: a seah of impure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten in the form of crackers. If a seah of pure heave fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. Two boxes, one of pure heave and one of impure profane grain: a seah of pure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. If a seah of impure heave fell, both of them are forbidden.” In any way you look at it, if it fell into heave, it is forbidden, if it fell into the profane, it is forbidden since impurity in doubt is impure but demaʿ in doubt is permitted.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of demaʿ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of demaʿ which is eaten as demaʿ is subject to ḥallah. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rabbi Judah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rabbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rabbi Judah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rabbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.
Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the contents of the second box before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the contents of the second box before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rabbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rabbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more than what was planted. Rabbi Zeira objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, it is permitted the moment the new growth is more than the original amount. Similarly, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden even if the new growth is more! Rabbi Zeira follows his own opinion, as Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi 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.
Mishnah
1 When they came to a woman who was eating heave and told her your husband died, or he divorced you; similarly a slave who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died, or he sold you to an Israelite or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a priest who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rabbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth, but Rabbi Joshua frees them. If he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rabbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rabbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these, if heave was in their mouths, Rabbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it, Rabbi Joshua says, they should spit it out. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rabbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rabbi Joshua says, he should spit it out. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was tevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated food that had not been redeemed, or that he tasted the taste of a bedbug in his mouth, he has to spit it out.
Halakhah
“A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israelite eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rabbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rabbi Eliezer cannot follow Rabbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rabbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rabbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rabbi Ḥanina said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues, from where that he who eats with permission is free? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out that it was heave, who is obligated, and him who thought that he was an Israelite but it turned out that he was a priest, who is free? They said to him, by the declaration of the court. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was a Sabbath, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out that it was a well-being offering, who is free? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted fat but it turned out that it was forbidden fat, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was forbidden but it turned out that it was permitted, who is free? They did not answer him. What did he say to them? Let us take counsel: “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.”Leviticus 4:23, 28 He who returns from his prior knowledge is obligated for his error; this excludes one who would not stop even if he knew! Rabbi Assi went to see them and said, why did you not answer him: “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”Leviticus 4:23, 28? They said to him, he asked the question and gave the answer.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This is one of three derivations which are clear from the Torah: “You shall come to the priest who will be in those days.”Deuteronomy 26:3 Is there a priest now who is not a priest after some time? Who is that? That is one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of one who had performed ḥaliẓah, that his work is valid. Rav said, “You will want the work of his hands,”Deuteronomy 33:11 that the work of everybody who is of the descendants of Levi is valid.
In Rav’s opinion, only a sacrificing priest. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion, any priest. In Rav’s opinion, only for sacrifices in the Temple. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even holy food in the countryside. In the rabbis’ opinion, only during the existence of the Temple. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even today.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Does this apply even to the remaining actions? If he received the blood, does he sprinkle the blood on the walls of the altar; if he takes a fistful of the flour offering, can he burn it on the altar; if he burned the red cow, can he sprinkle water mixed with its ashes, to purify? Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Isaac: Since we have stated: “they made it like a purification sacrifice which atones even if obtained by robbery, as long as this fact is unknown to the public;” this means that if he received, he sprinkles; if he takes a fistful, he burns; if he burned, he sprinkles.
Rabbi Jacob ben Zavdi asked in the name of Rabbi Isaac: If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known to him that he was the son of a divorcee or a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, how do you treat him? As if he had died and the homicide might return to his home town, or as if the latter’s trial had been concluded when there was no High Priest, when he never could leave from there?
Let us hear from the following: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient. Rabbi Tarfon declared pure and Rabbi Akiva impure. Rabbi Tarfon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rabbi Akiva said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rabbi Tarfon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rabbi Akiva said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid. Rabbi Tarfon said to him, how is that, Akiva? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rabbi Akiva said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rabbi Tarfon said to Rabbi Akiva, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”
Rabbi Yose said, this means that if he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, his work remains valid until he is disqualified by a court. That also means that if it was doubtful whether he was impure or had a bodily defect, his work is valid if you can compare him to the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had given ḥaliẓah. But if you have to compare him to a person with a bodily defect, his work is invalid. But is the case of the miqweh not that of a doubt? Rabbi Ḥanina said, this means that any blemish on the family needs a court judgment.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, where do they disagree? Concerning slave and wife. But in the other cases, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees. Rabbi Samuel ben Rabbi Isaac said, the Mishnah says so: “or if it became known that it was tevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated food that had not been redeemed,” and Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree.
What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rabbi Nathan said, not that Rabbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rabbi Eliezer holds that chewed is like swallowed.” It is the same with the Sabbath, Passover, the Day of Atonement, the nazir, carcasses and torn animals, abominations and crawling things.
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal “inside an animal you may eat,”Leviticus 11:3 but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.
Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Hoshaiah asked: What is the difference between this and worms in peas, squash bugs in sweet vetch, worms in dates and dried figs? There, they are in their bodies; here it is not in its body.
Muries sauce, if it is not clear, is permitted; if it is clear it is forbidden.
Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats the bread. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things, I might think that they are forbidden while they are inside the fruit, the verse says: “They are impure,”Leviticus 11:26, 27, 28 when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return.
Abba bar Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rabbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal “inside an animal you may eat.”Leviticus 11:3 You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animal.
Not only a bedbug, but everything a person is afraid of.
Mishnah
2 If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered from the garden into the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rabbi Joshua said, he should not finish. If it got dark on Sabbath eve, Rabbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rabbi Joshua said, he should not finish.
Halakhah
There, we have stated: “If a vine is planted in the courtyard, one may take an entire bunch, and similarly for pomegranate and watermelon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon.” Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Tarfon says following Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Tarfon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rabbi Illa, Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Either Rabbi Tarfon follows Rabbi Eliezer or Rabbi Tarfon makes a meal consisting of two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rabbi Nathan said, not that Rabbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rabbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”
Mishnah
3 Heave wine that was left uncovered should be poured out, certainly if it was profane. Three kinds of fluids are forbidden when they were uncovered, water, wine, and milk. All other fluids are permitted. How long should they be left unattended to become forbidden? So that the crawling creature might come from a nearby place and drink. The measure of uncovered water, until the bitterness be lost in them. Rabbi Yose said, in vessels any amount and on the ground 40 seah. Pecked-at figs, grapes, green melons, watermelons, gourds, and sweet melons, even large as a pitcher, large or small, separated from or connected to the ground which contain moisture are forbidden. What was bitten by a snake is forbidden because of mortal danger. The wine filter is forbidden when left unattended but Rabbi Neḥemiah permits it.
Halakhah
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Wine left uncovered must be poured out, even if it is heave. A dish cooked with water that was left uncovered must be thrown out, even if it is heave and certainly if it is profane. Rabbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so: “Heave wine that was left uncovered should be poured out, and certainly profane wine.” The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden to keep wine that was left uncovered; if it was kept and it turned into vinegar by itself it is forbidden. It is forbidden to keep figs and grapes that were pecked at; if they were kept and dried up by themselves they are permitted.
It happened that the daughter of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya punched holes into figs so that the fellows should not eat them but her father Rabbi Ḥiyya ate from them. Is that not forbidden? He knew of the matter. Is it not forbidden anyhow, have we not stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden for I say, they ate from the place of a pecking hole.” She had been watching.
Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rabbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rabbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael who said to him, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael fell ill. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Hoshaiah, Rabbi Abun bar Kahana, and Rabbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rabbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting there. They said, there is the author of the decision and the person it happened to; they went and asked him. Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael said to them, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rabbi Zeira said to him, maybe that statement of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rabbi Hila standing with Rabbi Abun bar Kahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”
Rabbi Immi had guests. He said to them, if my cooked wine had not been left uncovered, I would have served you some. Rabbi Vivian told him, bring it and I will drink. He said, he who wants to die should go and die in his own house.
The spiced wine of Bar Yudani was left uncovered. He went and asked the rabbis who told him, it is forbidden. But did not Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered! The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Titus: One which consists of one third ground spices.
They asked before Rabbi Abbahu: What is the status of cooked wine that was left uncovered? He said to them, Rabbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum, and you are asking me? Is that not applicable to cooked wine? He went to ask Rabbi Isaac who told him, it is forbidden. Rabbi Abbahu then remembered that Rabbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Ammi, Rabbi Eleazar: If he was entering and leaving it is permitted. The barrel of Bar Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rabbi Abba bar Mamai, who told him, it is permitted. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Ammi, Rabbi Eleazar: If he was sleeping it is permitted. Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, it is forbidden. We do not know who said what. It is reasonable to infer that Rabbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rabbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rabbi Ḥanina.
Rabbi Yose ben Shaul understands it from this occurrence: A woman loved very much doing good deeds. One time, a poor man came to her and she served him food. While he was eating, she noticed that her husband was coming. She put the poor man on the upper floor. She put food before her husband who ate, took a nap, and slept. A snake came and ate from what was before him; the poor man saw it. When he awoke and got up he wanted to continue eating what was before him. The one on the upper floor started to talk to him. That means, if he was sleeping, it is permitted. It was familiar with it. Is she not forbidden for being alone with another man? Since he is not suspected in one thing, he is not suspected in the other, “For they committed adultery, blood is on their hands.”Ezekiel 23:37
It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold to Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once he drank wine Friday night, went to the roof, fell down, and died. The dogs were licking his blood. People came and asked Rabbi Ḥanina, should we lift him from before them? He said to them, it is written: “Torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs!”Exodus 22:31 This one robbed the dogs and fed it to Jews. He said to them, let them, they are eating from their own!
A pious person happened to be insistent in the matter of uncovered wine. Once he was struck with a fever. They saw him sitting and giving a sermon on the Day of Atonement with a flask of water in his hand.
A person’s amphora of wine became uncovered. He went on the eve of the Great Fast to pour it out. Another person saw him and said, give it to me to drink. He said to him, but was it not left uncovered? He said to him, give it to me, the Master of the Fast will support me. He did not finish drinking when he started shaking.
Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills. Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira. As the master of the ruling, could he have asked?
Rabbi Zeira was dozing; he was sitting and eating and was sleeping in the evening. He put his hand on a toman and said, kindle a light. They lit a light and found a snakelet like a hair curled around it. He said to it: Evil one, was I not careful about you?
Rabbi Ammi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful about. It is forbidden to put a coin into the mouth, or a dish under the bed, a bread in the armpit, a knife in the middle of a radish, a knife into an etrog. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, all sweat that comes from a human is poison except the sweat of the face.
When they asked Rabbi Jonathan, he said: Am I the guarantor of your life? Rabbi Yannai said, if you bit something off, you bit off soot. If you lose, you lose a pearl. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, if you would sell yourself for the games, you would sell yourself at a high price; but here at a very cheap price.
It was stated: “With water that was left uncovered one should not scrub his house; one should not pour it into the public domain, or give it to drink to a Gentile, neither should one use it to water another person’s animals but one may use it to water his own animals. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead clay, or wash clothes, or soak pots, glasses, and food baskets, and certainly not wash his face, hands, and feet. Others say, they forbade only the place of a scratch. His face is always like a scratch. The tips of his fingers and toes are always like a scratch. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead dough. Rabbi Neḥemiah said, baking is permitted because snake poison is destroyed by fire.” Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: That is, if it does not collapse, but if it collapsed it is forbidden.
Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot water. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rabbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked food for pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”
“The wine filter, Rabbi Neḥemiah says, if it is blocked on top even though it is open below. Rabbi Judah says, if it was covered below even if the top is uncovered it is permitted since snake poison is like netting and remains on top.” Rabbi Eliezer says, if he did not stir it. But if he did stir, it is forbidden.
A flask in its casing is permitted; covered but not stoppered it is forbidden. Stoppered but not covered, if the stopper appeared on the outside it is permitted. Two Amoraim, one said if it can be taken up by its stopper, and the other said, so that the head of the weaver’s shuttle could not enter. Rabbi Abba said, he who wants to do it right, stoppers and covers it.
A forgotten flask deposited in a litter, a chest, or a chassis that later was found is forbidden. If he checked and afterwards put it in it is permitted. A case came before Rabbi, where it was seen uncovering and covering. He said, because of that evil one should we invalidate all covers? Rabbi Mana said, it is reasonable that in that case itself was forbidden.
Rabbi Jeremiah said, why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from impure animals. As we have stated: “If the Gentile stands and milks the herd, if a Jew stands nearby there is no worry.” Rav Abba in the name of Rav Judah: Why is Gentiles’ milk forbidden? Because of the uncovering. Let him make cheese? Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison between the holes.
There are three kinds of poison. Poison which sinks down, poison which floats on top, and poison remaining on the surface like a net. In the days of Rabbi Jeremiah, the barrels of the great assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die but the last ones died. I say that was sinking poison. Workers were on the field when the water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank from it and did not die but the last ones died. I say that was sinking poison. We have stated so: An uncovered amphora or a watermelon with pecking marks, even if the first ones ate or drank from it, the later ones should not eat or drink; I say that there is sinking poison. Uncovered wine from which ten persons drank is forbidden for others to eat or drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.
“Five fluids are not endangered by being uncovered: Fish oil, muries, vinegar, olive oil, and honey. Rabbi Simeon forbids honey. The Sages agree with Rabbi Simeon if it was seen pecking.” Rabbi Ḥinena bar Pappos had an uncovered flask of honey in his hand. Before he could ask, it broke apart.
Rav and Samuel both say, the earth is permitted to be broken apart before it, but no vessel is permitted to be broken apart before it. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi were sitting in a certain house when murmurs went around. They said, is it possible that it will be seen here? It was seen. They said, praised be He Who chose the Sages who said, the earth is permitted to be broken apart before it, but no vessel is permitted to be broken apart before it.
Rabbi Yannai feared it so much that he put his bed on four beams standing in water. Once he stretched out his hand and found it near himself. He said, take it away from me, “the Eternal watches over the simple-minded.”Psalms 116:6
What is the measure of a hole? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina showed it thus: he said, the tip of my small finger. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, so that the tip of the small finger of a newborn cannot enter it. Even if the hole were smaller, the snake could enter it but since it does not know how to leave again, it does not enter. A woven basket even if very tight is forbidden for it can enter at one place and leave at another. A knapsack is forbidden even if it hangs very high since it will let itself down.”
What is “close by”? Rabbi Samuel said, from the handles of an amphora to its mouth. Would it not be seen? Rabbi Ḥanina said, it is a small kind called šefifōn and looks like a hair.
It was stated: “Water on the ground forty seah. Rabbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rabbi Judah and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering.”
How long? Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, until the soap-wort blossoms. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose in the name of Rav: Until they become like goose feet. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when it became permitted on the field, it became permitted in the house. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: The rules of uncovering apply in the Land and outside the Land, in summer and in winter.
Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, who is the Tanna of pecking? “Rabban Gamliel says, also the snake because it spits out.” Rabbi Jonah said, who would turn commandments into peckings for us?
It was stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden to eat from them for I say, they might have eaten from the place of a pecking hole.” Rabbi Abba said, that means that a snake spits out repeatedly. Rabbi Jonah said, who considers for us commandments for peckings? But for torn animals, Rabbi Abba said in the name of the rabbis from there, “if it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order because intestines are presumed to be in order.” Should one not question whether they were pierced? Intestines are presumed to be in order. But here, you say so? It is worse if there is danger to life; for peckings they went all the way with Rabban Gamliel.
It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer said, one may eat figs and grapes in the night without worry, since it is said “the Eternal watches over the simple-minded.”Psalms 116:6 Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rav: A fish with pecking marks is forbidden. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Tabi in the name of Rav: A living fish with pecking marks is forbidden. If it is salted, through the salt it trembles. Dead, one cuts out the place of the pecking.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: A watermelon with pecking marks whose inside is rotten is forbidden. A person carried a sweet melon with pecking marks. He let ten people eat from it and they died. He covered it with spittle and it broke apart.
A person hated sheep’s meat. Once he was eating red meat when a passer-by said, this is sheep’s meat. He choked and died. The donkey drivers stayed at an inn. They said, bring us lentils; they brought. They said, give us a second helping; they brought. They said to them, the first ones were better, what were those? They said, we found the spine of a snake in them; they choked and died.
It is written: “When the Eternal likes the conduct of a person, even his enemy will make peace with him.”Proverbs 16:7 Rabbi Meir says, that is the dog. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says, that is the snake. The shepherds milked; there came a snake, ate from it, but the dog observed it. When they came to eat, he started barking at them but they did not pay attention. At the end, he ate and died. A person made ground garlic in his house. There came a mountain snake and ate from it but the house snake observed it. When the people from the house came to eat from it, the house snake started to throw dust down on them. When they did not pay attention, it threw itself on it. A person invited a rabbi and let the dog sit next to the rabbi. He said, how did I merit this insult? He said, rabbi, I am repaying the dog’s good deed. Kidnappers came to town. One of them came and wanted to take my wife but the dog ate his testicles.
Mishnah
4 An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose. Rabbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rabbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if one can save a reviʿit from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rabbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if one can save a reviʿit from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rabbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed in the ground; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ action. About both of these cases, Rabbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to intentionally make it impure. If somebody was on the road with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I will defile all of them, Rabbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rabbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her, otherwise we will defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over.
Halakhah
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from the opinions of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended heave.
The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rabbi Yose, the second following Rabbi Meir. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rabbi Yose but Rabbi Meir will not agree; the second following Rabbi Meir but Rabbi Yose will not agree. Rabbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rabbi Yose; therefore, following Rabbi Meir one burns and following Rabbi Simeon one burns. Then Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon should form a majority against Rabbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rabbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated: “Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Simeon taught that. And if you want to say that Rabbi Meir does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Mana, explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rabbi Assi: All suspended heave we are dealing with here is suspended heave about which he has no intention of asking. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything.
You say, the first amphora following Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Meir will not agree. But did we not state: “When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure.” And if it follows Rabbi Meir, whether it contains enough to lift it or does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? In addition, from what we have stated: “Rabbi Yose said, this is not the implication.” A person says “this is not the implication” only if he agrees with the premise. How is that? There, the Torah cares about the money of the Jews, here what can you say? Does he not here also cause him to lose money since he needs firewood to burn each lot separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rabbi Akiva and the words of Rabbi Ḥananiah, the Second of the priests.
Rabbi Ila and Rabbi Zeira, both in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The first amphora follows Rabbi Yose, the second both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Mana: Does it not disagree with Rabbi Meir? He said to him, we may say it follows neither Rabbi Meir nor Rabbi Yose since we find that Rabbi Meir burns suspended heave in all cases. Rabbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Zeiri: Rabbi Meir burns suspended heave in all cases. I said to him, because he considers suspended heave from the words of the Torah. He said to me, do I not explain that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwellings? For we have stated: “From Gentiles’ dwellings one suspends; Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, one burns.” Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: Rabbi Meir burns suspended heave any day of the year, as we have stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn it during the morning hours? Explain it if he was lazy and did not burn it then. Know that this is so, for he did not state “during the morning hours.” Is that not because he was lazy and did not burn then? Rabbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rabbi Yose said, explain it if impurity was created at that time, and you cannot infer anything.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rabbi Ilai said: Rabbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rabbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeira: Is it not reasonable that Rabbi Simeon agrees with Rabbi Joshua but Rabbi Joshua will not agree with Rabbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there the heave is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rabbi Meir follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rabbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure heave. Rabbi Isaac, the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after it was put there. Rabbi Mana said to Rabbi Shammai: You who say that Rabbi Simeon agrees with Rabbi Joshua! Even Rabbi Joshua does not agree with Rabbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaim. There, Rabbi Meir in the name of Rabbi Joshua, but here Rabbi Simeon in the name of Rabbi Joshua.
There, we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rabbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Judah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Simeon parallels Rabbi Joshua. But we have stated: “Rabbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: The reason of Rabbi Judah: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.”Deuteronomy 12:24 I permitted you its blood only to spill it. Rabbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rabbi Yose, objected: That is written about blood of invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse: “Perfect it shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.”Leviticus 22:21 Rabbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.
Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: With a vessel which inside is pure but impure outside one does not defile a small amount even to save a large amount. But did we not state: “Let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands?” Rabbi Samuel bar Berekhiah said, explain for two vessels, one pure inside and impure outside, the other impure inside and pure outside. But that Mishnah speaks of one impure vessel! Rabbi Mana said, explain it if the vat is pure; the Mishnah deals with an impure vat. Did we not state: “Let it descend and be absorbed into the ground; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ action.” Explain it if it rolled onto a bet happeras.
In the opinion of the colleagues, first and second amphoras. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, an amphora of wine and one of oil.
It is not reasonable if one already was impure. It is not reasonable if one was a slave girl.
It was stated: “A group of people on the road were met by Gentiles who said to them, give us one of you that we may kill him, otherwise we will kill all of you; even if all of them are killed they should not hand over a Jewish person. If they designated one, like Sheba ben Bikhri, they should hand him over so as not to be killed.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, on condition that he be guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri; but Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if he is not guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri. Ulla bar Qoshav was proscribed by the government. He fled and went to Lydda to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. They came and surrounded the city. They said to them, if you do not hand him over to us, we will destroy the city. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi went to him and talked him into being handed over to them. Elijah, may he be remembered for good things, used to appear to him; he stopped appearing. He fasted many fasts; he appeared to him and said, do I appear to informers? He said to him, did I not act according to a baraita? He said to him, is that a statement for the pious?
Rabbi Issi was captured in Safsufa. Rabbi Jonathan said, may the dead be wrapped in his shroud. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, even if I should kill or be killed, I will go and save him by force. He went and negotiated; they handed him over to him. He said to them, come to our old man, he shall pray for you. They came to Rabbi Joḥanan. He said to them, what was in your mind to do to him shall be done to these people. They did not reach Apipsaros when all of them were gone.
Zeir bar Ḥinena was captured at Safsufa. Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Samuel went to negotiate for him. Queen Zenobia said to them, your Creator usually does wonders for you; put Him under pressure! There came a Saracen carrying a sabre. He said to them, with this sabre did Odenathus kill his brother. Zeir bar Ḥinena was saved.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He went to the assembly hall where Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish was asking him repeatedly but he did not answer. He said, what happened? He said, what can you do? He said, all limbs depend on the heart and the heart depends on the wallet. He said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He said, what do you have? He said to him, show me their corner. He went out to show him. They saw him from afar and started to chirp. They said, if that is Rabbi Joḥanan, may he take half of it. He said to them, by your life I am taking all of it; he took all.
The boys of Rabbi Judah Neśia hit Diodes the swineherd. He became king and descended to Paneas. He sent letters to the rabbis that they should be at his place immediately after the end of the Sabbath. He said to his courier, do not deliver the letters before the evening, near sundown. The courier came to them in the evening, near sundown. Rabbi Judah Neśia and Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman had gone to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias. An angitros came to them; Rabbi Judah Neśia wanted to scold him. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, leave him alone; he appears for wonders. He said to them, how are the rabbis? They told him about their problem. He said to them, go and bathe; your Creator will perform a miracle for you at Sabbath’s end. He carried them and brought them up. They said to him, the rabbis are outside. There was that bathhouse, he let it be heated for seven days and seven nights. He went out and cooled it before them. They went in and then appeared before him. He said to them: Because your Creator performs miracles for you, you insult the majesty! They said, we insulted Diocles the swineherd; we do not insult Diocletianus the king. Even so, one should never vex a little Roman or a little Gueber.
Mishnah
1 If somebody sows heave in error it should be plowed under; if intentionally it must be kept. If it is one third ripe it must be kept, whether in error or intentionally. But flax must be plowed under when sown intentionally. But it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Israelite poor and poor priests collect; the Israelite poor must sell to the poor priests for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. Rabbi Tarfon says, only poor priests may collect; maybe they would forget and put some in their mouths. Rabbi Akiva said to him, if that is so, then only pure persons should collect. Also, it is subject to tithe and the tithe of the poor. Poor Israelites and poor priests may take; the poor Israelites must sell to priests for the value of heave but the proceeds are theirs. He who flails is praiseworthy; he who threshes, what should he do? He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal and fills it from the same kind. In that way, he will not muzzle the animal or feed it heave.
Halakhah
“If someone sows heave in error it should be plowed under;” etc. Would it not be reasonable to switch? They fined him that his field should be worthless under the heave.
Rabbi Samuel bar Eudaimon asked: Can he be trusted if he says, I did it intentionally? They said to him, if other people knew, it is not on his word; otherwise, the mouth which forbade is the mouth that permitted.
Rabbi Benjamin ben Gidul asked: If he had sown vetch? If he had sown heave from outside the Land? They said to him, it is a “fence,” and there is no “fence” for a “fence.”
That means that sanctity falls on it when it is still standing. That means, if he separated before it was one third ripe it did not become holy.
“It must be plowed under when sown intentionally.” They fined him so that he does not profit from the wooden parts.
Rabbi Yose asked: If he dedicated sheaves of his harvest and they were switched, do even so poor Israelites and poor priests collect?
It was stated: “The wife of an am haʾaretz may grind with the wife of a ḥaver when she is impure. But when she is pure she should not grind, for she will hold herself purer than the other.” Following the words of Rabbi Tarfon she should not grind even when she is impure in case she forgets and put some into her mouth!
So is the Mishnah: “If that is so, then only pure persons should collect.”
So is the Mishnah: “It is subject to heaves, tithes, and the tithe of the poor.”
If he planted one pound of onions of First Tithe and it became ten pounds, these are subject to tithes. Its First Tithe is given for the heave of the tithe and for what he planted. If he planted one pound of onions of Second Tithe and it became ten pounds, these are subject to tithes and he still has to redeem the second tithe from what he planted.
“He who flails is praiseworthy.” Praiseworthy in relation to whom? To him who threshes. “He who threshes, what should he do?” It was stated in the name of Rabbi Simeon: “He hangs vetch for her and she likes it better than anything.” Rabbi Yose said, this implies that if he did this with profane grain he does not transgress “do not muzzle.”
“One does not transgress ‘do not muzzle’ while softening legumes or fenugreek, but it is forbidden because of the bad impression.” Some Tannaim state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” But some Tannaim state: “Threshing which is not permitted to you.”
Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, our Mishnah after the lentils lost their sap; then the lentils shrink it so that it will not give any taste. But if he gave it before the lentils gave their sap; it does not deal with that case. And just as you say, the lentils shrink it so that it will not give, so the lentils shrink it so that it will not absorb. How is that? If he put a profane onion into lentils of heave, the lentils shrink it so that it will not absorb. That means, if it is dry, but if it is moist it is forbidden. Onions and leeks are forbidden moist or dry, whole or cut up. If he removed the top it is as if cut up. If they are two or three they are as if cut up.
This all is if the outer skin does not impart taste. But if it does, there are Tannaim who state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” The Mishnah there implies also threshing which is not permitted to you, since we have stated: “He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal.”
“When it threshes,” not when it tramples on it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, even if it tramples on it.
Rabbi Abun said: Rabbi Akiva asked Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai in order to examine him: If somebody muzzled outside and then brought the animal inside? He said to him: “When you come to the tent of meeting;”Leviticus 10:9 from when you come to the tent of meeting. Rabbi Ezra said, “Do not muzzle an ox at his threshing;”Deuteronomy 25:4 do not thresh using a muzzled ox.
Mishnah
2 The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from tevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, demaʿ, and First Fruits are profane. Growths from dedicated seeds and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing. One hundred lagenae of heave and one profane are all permitted for produce whose seeds disappear; but for produce whose seeds do not disappear, even if there are one hundred profane and one of heave they all are forbidden. Growth from tevel is permitted for anything whose seeds disappear, but if the seeds do not disappear even the growth from the growth is forbidden. What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions. Rabbi Judah says, garlic is like barley.
Halakhah
We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. But tevel is mostly profane, First Tithe is mostly profane, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical is infrequent, heave from outside the Land is infrequent, most of demaʿ is profane, First Fruits are infrequent.
“Growths from dedicated seeds and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time he sowed.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He redeems the entire storage for the value of that seah. The difference between dedicated produce and Second Tithe: Second Tithe, whether produce whose seeds disappear or whose seeds do not disappear, is redeemed by the wholesale price; only that produce whose seeds disappear is redeemed by current prices, produce whose seeds do not disappear is redeemed following the early price. Dedicated produce, whether produce whose seeds disappear or whose seeds do not disappear, is treated in its place and time; only that one redeems the entire storage of produce whose seeds disappear for the value of that seah, but for produce whose seeds do not disappear he has to redeem the contents of the entire storage.
Rabbi Yose said: This implies that if there were 100 seah, each one lifted from 100 seah, and one profane was switched with one of them, all would be permitted.
There, Rabbi Joḥanan said if a seah of heave was lifted from 100 of profane produce, anything will cause it to become insignificant. And here, if he collected and some profane produce fell into it, should it not be permitted? As Rabbi Joḥanan said there, he mills and it is permitted, so also here. There, both kinds came into his hands. But here, only tevel came into his hands if he collected from one lagena. But if he collected from two, both kinds came into his hands.
How far? Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden for three harvests; it is forbidden up to the fourth harvest, but the fourth is permitted. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon asked before Rabbi Mana: How far for heave? He said to him, they made the fourth harvest like the first harvest. Just as the first harvest of growth whose seeds disappear is forbidden for heave and permitted for tevel, so the fourth harvest of growth whose seeds do not disappear is forbidden for heave and permitted for tevel.
What do you have? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, for example, bulb plants.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Garlic up to the size of a barley corn is a plant whose seeds disappear. Larger than that, it is a plant whose seeds do not disappear. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Garlic is like barley in every respect.
Mishnah
3 He who weeds with a non-Jew among bulb plants, even though his vegetables are tevel one may eat a snack from them. Saplings of heave that became impure if planted become pure not to transmit impurity but they remain forbidden to be eaten until he removes what is edible. Rabbi Judah says, until he removes a second time.
Halakhah
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This follows Rabbi Simeon. If it follows Rabbi Joḥanan, even a full meal! But since Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice; therefore we have to say that this follows Rabbi Simeon.
It was stated: Demai is permitted to him who weeds with a Samaritan. Therefore, not if it is certain! Why? For demai disappears when it is in the ground but the growth of forbidden produce cannot lift it.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Saplings of heave that had become impure he may plant and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Water that became impure is made to touch and may be used as water for Tabernacles but if it was water for Tabernacles from before it already is pushed aside. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Figs and grapes that had become impure one may squeeze and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Assi, in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, one squeezes less than the volume of olives and his wine is good even for libations. They said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagrees. Both about leniency and restriction? If you say about leniency, this is understandable. If you say about restriction, did we not state: “Until he removes what is edible?”
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah, “until he removes the leaves a second time.”
Mishnah
1 An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rabbi Judah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, the dough is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.
Halakhah
“An onion which one added to lentils,” etc. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, our Mishnah in case after the lentils lost their sap; then the lentils shrink it so it will not absorb any taste. As you say, lentils shrink it so it will not absorb. Similarly, lentils shrink it so it will not give.
The Mishnah speaks about a profane onion which he put into heave lentils; but not the case of a heave onion put into profane lentils. If it is dry, but moist is forbidden. An onion, but leeks are forbidden moist or dry, entire or cut up.
If he removed the tip it is as if cut up. If there were two or three small ones, they are as if cut up. Only if the outer shell does not transmit taste. But if the outer shell transmits taste, it is forbidden.
There, we have stated: “If fish improved in value when cooked with leeks of second tithe, the increase is proportional.” Rabbi Hoshaiah said, that Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Judah, since we have stated: “Rabbi Judah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.”
The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden food is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rabbi Judah? Rabbi Judah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.
“If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, the dough is forbidden.” It was stated: Rabbi Yose permits it. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice of the apple. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Just as Rabbi Yose says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.
“Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rabbi Meir will agree. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it spoiled and improved or improved and spoiled, it is a 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 Lakish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said this tradition here: Rabbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said it is the opinion of everybody.
Mishnah
2 If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rabbi Meir forbids and Rabbi Judah permits. Rabbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.
Halakhah
Rabbi Zeira said, they asked before Rabbi Yannai: What are the rules if he put it on the plug of the amphora? He said to them: “Its neighbor will inform about it.”Job 36:33 What does “its neighbor will inform about it” mean? Rabbi Yose said, that which we have stated there: “An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits.” As you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora; so here only if the loaf touches the plug. Rabbi Mana said, from this it follows as you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora itself; so here only if the loaf touches the plug itself. His opinion implies, even if the pitta is cold. Rabbi Abba said, the problem was about a cold one. But did we not state “hot”? Rav Ḥisda said, that one should not say since the vapor absorbs it should be permitted.
Following Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, water acts on fruits, other fluids do not act on fruits, against Rabbi Judah! But Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish says, water acts on fruits and loses fluid volume, other fluids act on fruits and do not lose volume. Rabbi Judah says, other fluids do not act on fruits at all.
And what Rabbi Joḥanan said, when we went to Caesarea to study Torah with the Great Rabbi Hoshaiah, we put our flat-cake on boxes of fish sauce and we tasted there the taste of fish sauce. Is this against Rabbi Judah? They put it into the brine. Is that not forbidden because they rob the owner? They had obtained the owner’s permission.
Wheat below and barley above; just as wheat does not absorb so the barley will not absorb. Barley below and wheat above, just as barley absorbs so wheat will absorb.
May one roast two spits together in one oven, one of kosher meat and one of carcass meat? Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, it is forbidden. Samuel said in the name of Levi, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “One may not roast two Passover sacrifices together in one oven because they could be mixed up.” They said only, because they could be mixed up; therefore, not if they could not be mixed up.
Calamint water, Rav said it is forbidden, Samuel said it is permitted. Samuel served Rav calamint water.
That inner part, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One fires it with dry branches.
Mishnah
3 Fenugreek that fell into a water cistern, for heave and second tithe if the seeds are enough to impart taste, disregarding the wood. But for the Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, and dedicated seeds, if seeds and wood together impart taste. If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of kilaim from a vineyard, they should be burned. If he had bundles of fenugreek from tevel, he pounds them and computes how much seed this contains and separates the seeds but not the wood. If he separated, he should not say I will pound, take the wood, and give the seeds but he gives seeds with the wood.
Halakhah
Does not the wood spoil repeatedly? Our Mishnah follows him who says that anything that spoils is forbidden. But even according to him who says anything that spoils is permitted, he agrees here that it is forbidden. Why? Fenugreek improves anything into which it falls.
How much is a bundle? 25 plants. Rabbi Joḥanan said, four to a bed.
It implies that they become tevel in bundles. Why not single ears? One never gathers for that. But may grains be gathered thus? One does not grow for that. But these, one gathers for this, one grows for this.
Mishnah
4 Profane olives preserved with heave olives, if they were broken profanes with broken heaves, broken profanes with whole heaves, or preserves in heave fluid, are forbidden. But whole profanes with broken heaves are permitted.
Halakhah
Rabbi Jonah said, this implies that broken olives absorb, release, and absorb again; whole olives absorb, release, but do not absorb again. That means, if it is neither improving nor spoiling it is forbidden. The Mishnah is Rabbi Simeon’s, for Rabbi Simeon says if its taste spoils, it is forbidden. But did Rabbi Simeon not say, if its taste spoils, it is permitted? Following what Rabbi Simeon says, irrigated cabbage preserved with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs.
Mishnah
5 If an impure fish was preserved with a pure fish, if in any keg containing two seah the impure fish weighed ten zuz in Judea which are five tetradrachmas in Galilee, the sauce is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says, a quarter log in two seah. Rabbi Yose said, one sixteenth of it. Impure locusts preserved with pure locusts do not forbid the fluid exuding from the latter. Rabbi Zadok testified that the fluid exuding from impure locusts is pure.
Halakhah
Rabbi Judah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaiah: “Unsalted pure fish preserved with salted impure fish is forbidden.” But did we not state: “He washes it and it is permitted”? Rabbi Mana said, he who said it is permitted, when he preserved them simultaneously; he who said it is prohibited when he preserved them one after the other. You can understand that this is so, since we have stated “in heave fluid it is forbidden;” is that not when he preserved one after the other?
“Any keg containing two seah.” How much is in a seah? 24 log. How much is in a log? 2 pounds. How much is in a pound? 100 zin. It turns out that each single zin corresponds to one in 960. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun instructed at Akhbara: one in a thousand.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: A quarter log of fish sauce in two seah of fish sauce. But the sauce of an impure fish never can save! Rabbi Abbahu said, I computed that close to 200. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya, a quarter log of fish sauce in two seah of fish and fish sauce. A case came before Rabbi Joshia and he instructed accordingly.
We have stated thus: “When has this been said? If he scoops out piece by piece and puts them before himself, he has to proceed in the way indicated. But if he scoops out piece by piece and throws them away, even more than was indicated is permitted.”
By some pretext, cheese was mixed up. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked Rabbi Abba bar Zavda. He said to them, the property of the public cannot be forbidden. Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rabbi Isaac asked: Is not Caius Lycus written on these documents, and you say, by a pretext?
“Rabbi Zadok testified that the fluid exuding from impure locusts is pure.” In what respect is it pure? It is pure not to prepare. But to make impure, the most minute amount makes impure.
Mishnah
6 All those which are pickled one with the other are permitted except with bulb plants. Profane bulb plant with heave bulb plant, profane vegetable with heave bulb plant, are forbidden. But profane bulb plant with heave vegetable is permitted. Rabbi Yose says, all that is cooked in water with white beets is forbidden because it imparts taste. Rabbi Simeon says, irrigated cabbage preserved with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs. Rabbi Akiva says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat. If an egg was treated with forbidden spices, even its yolk is forbidden because it absorbs. Pickling and cooking fluid of heave is forbidden to laymen.
Halakhah
Rabbi Joḥanan said, one does not speak of pickled food but of that cooked in water. Pickled is like being hot.
Rabbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rabbi Akiva permits but the Sages forbid. Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that meat with meat is permitted. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rabbi Abbahu came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rabbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rabbi Akiva says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that meat with meat is forbidden. Rabbi Ḥinena: Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that meat with meat is forbidden.
Rabbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that the unirrigated cabbage absorbs. Since Rav Huna said, take away its growing parts and get moisture; this shows that the irrigated absorbs.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: What is the rule if he cooked it in milk? Rabbi Zeira never in his life ate liver. Rabbi Abba cooked it in water and ate it; some say Rabbi Abba salted and ate it.
“Yolk is forbidden because it absorbs.” Bar Qappara stated: Yolk is forbidden and certainly egg white.
Isaac Rabba in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: If eggs were cooked in water and a chick was found in one of them, it is judged by the taste it gives.
Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon, Rabbi Birai, Rabbi Levi bar Plautus, an elder in the name of Rabbi: 61 are forbidden, 62 are permitted. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada testified before us: 60. He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I will declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I said what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty. He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabbi; he asked: Are there 50?
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Vegetables, shells, and water are counted. Rabbi Zeira said, even if the inside is forbidden. Rav Huna said, the shells of the forbidden help the permitted. Rabbi Zeira: That is, if he cooked them in their shells, cooked with cooked. But if he cooked shelled eggs with unshelled in water, or unshelled with shelled, cooked with uncooked, that needs a different measure.
Unimpregnated eggs are permitted: “His steer made pregnant, he will not miss impregnating.”Job 21:10 Eggs that started developing are forbidden. Twisted ones, he who likes it may eat them. If one found blood in them, one shaves off the place of the blood.
Rabbi Zeira went to visit Rabbi Ḥiyya, the son of Rabbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya. He found him sitting. He said, they taught only for yolk, but in the egg white it is permitted. He thought that he had heard it from his ancestor. Rabbi Abbahu came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Both egg white and yolk are forbidden. Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: Yolk is forbidden, egg white permitted. Rabbi Zeira said, he who says yolk is forbidden if it is found at the male part of the yolk; this applies even to yolk, but only if it is found on its male part since from there the development of the chick starts.
There, we have stated: “The following disable and do not fill: Water, whether pure or impure, pickling water, cooking water, afterwine before it became vinegar.” Here, you treat it as food, there as fluid. Rabbi Mana said, here when it is thick, there when it is thin. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, you may even say in both cases thick or thin. Taste counts for heave but not for a miqweh.
Mishnah
1 One does not put a fig cake or figs into muries because he would destroy them but one may add wine to muries. One does not use olive oil as base for perfume but one may use wine as base for oinomeli. One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes it; Rabbi Judah permits it because he improves it.
Halakhah
“One does not put fig cake or figs into muries,” etc. It was stated: “One puts fig cake or figs into muries in the way one uses spices on condition he not squeeze them to extract their juice. But spices are permitted, for that is what they are used for. A bundle of spices put into one pot and then transferred to another, if their taste is lost they are permitted, otherwise forbidden.”
What is the difference between this and dill? Did we not state: “Dill which gave its taste to a dish in a pot no longer is under the rules of heave and does not accept the impurity of food.” They gave to you from your own. From biblical law it should not accept the impurity of foodstuffs; they said that it should accept the impurity of foodstuffs and they said that after it transferred its taste it is disregarded.
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This is Rabbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rabbi permits but Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rabbi forbids it to laymen but Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon permits to laymen.”
Rabbi Mana ben Rabbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rabbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rabbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.
Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. We did not know who said what. Since Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Judah inverted his reasoning but Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Judah did not invert his reasoning, there for the priest, here for the owners, it follows that Rabbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.
Judah ben Keni, Rabbi Ammi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Because he reduces the number of drinkers.
Mishnah
2 Date honey, apple wine, vinegar from winter grapes, and any other fruit juices from heave, Rabbi Eliezer subjects to repayment of value and fifth, but Rabbi Joshua frees from payment. Rabbi Eliezer declares them impure as drinks. Rabbi Joshua said, the Sages did not enumerate seven fluids as one counts raw materials for perfumes but they said, seven fluids are impure, all other fluids are pure.
Halakhah
They want to say that they differ about the fifth but Rabbi Joshua agrees about the principal. They differ after the fact, but before the fact Rabbi Joshua agrees. But we have stated: “Rabbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes, but Rabbi Joshua frees it.” Here, when they obtained it after it became tevel, there before it became tevel.
Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if he tithed the dates, their honey is permitted even in Spain. This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to the dates. “Rabbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes.” We have stated: “Rabbi Nathan says, not that Rabbi Eliezer subjects it to tithes but Rabbi Eliezer says he should not eat from the tithes until he also tithed the honey.” This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to honey and dates.
“Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure as drink.” It was stated: “Rabbi Nathan said, Rabbi Eliezer does not declare it impure as drink; what did they disagree about? If some drink fell into it, then Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure as drink but the Sages say, it follows the majority.”
In the opinion of Rabbi Nathan, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rabbi Eliezer, all three said the same. Rabbi Meir, for he says, “fruit juice never is disregarded.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated: “Pure fish sauce into which fell the smallest amount of water is impure.” And Rabbi Eliezer here.
The reason of Rabbi Eliezer: “Any drink.”Leviticus 11:34 What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rabbi Eliezer hold with Rabbi Ishmael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rabbi Ishmael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rabbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Ishmael said: So did Rabbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret: “That can be eaten,”Leviticus 11:34 to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: “Any drink,”Leviticus 11:34 why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.
The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that if a drink is stinking from the start it is impure. But did we not state: “The fluid oozing out from them Rabbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages impure”? Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages about the waters of the ocean; even if they are stinking the Torah calls them water: “The collection of water He called oceans.”Genesis 1:10 Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that beet juice does not prepare.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: If somebody would say to you there are eight drinks, tell him, are not dew and water the same? But they counted them as two! If we had another, would they not have counted it? If another did exist, would they not have counted it?
Mishnah
3 One does not make honey from dates, or wine from apples, or vinegar from winter grapes, nor does one change any fruit of heave or second tithe from the way it grew except olives and grapes. Nobody receives the forty lashes because of ʿorlah, except for produce of olives and grapes; one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for products from olives and grapes. Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes. Nothing is presented on the altar except what comes from olives and grapes. The stalks of fresh figs, dried figs, kelisin, and carobs are forbidden to laymen.
Halakhah
Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for those made from olives and grapes,” even after it became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink, from where that he should bring them? The verse says, ‘bring!’Exodus 23:19; 34:26” That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.
“Pure heave olives should be made into oil, impure should not; grapes either pure or impure should not be processed into wine, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Jacob says in his name, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rabbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rabbi Joshua said they should be processed, and pure grapes should be processed, but not impure ones. Rabbi Judah said, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rabbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rabbi Joshua said they should be processed, and grapes should be processed, whether pure or impure. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed and impure grapes should not be processed; they disagreed about impure olives and pure grapes where Rabbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rabbi Joshua said they should be processed.” They all form a majority against Rabbi Meir about pure grapes, that they should be processed. Why does he say, they should not be processed? They are more valuable as food than as drink. They all form a majority against Rabbi Judah about impure grapes, that they should not be processed. Why does he say, they should be processed? To be able to use seeds and skins. About impure olives, Rabbi and Rabbi Meir form one group, Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Judah another one. How does one act?
Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Eleazar said, our Mishnah if they stick in the food. All statements by Rabbi Zeira about heaves and purity are traditions in the name of Rabbi Eleazar.
Mishnah
4 The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane wine. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demai be that he is required to deliver it to a priest? An eighth of an eighth.
Halakhah
Rabbi Joḥanan, the Mishnah deals with seeds of pears and paradise pears. Rabbi Eleazar said, you can even say the pit of unripe dates if they have not been sucked. But did we not state, “and so bones of sacrifices;” can you say if they have not been sucked? No, about cartilage in wings. Rabbi Abbahu came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of cartilage in wings.
“These are the new ones, all the time people regularly mash them. Rabbi Aḥa said, up to thirty days.”
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That is its measure. But did we not state: “One produces fine flour from wheat as he wants it, he cleans vegetables as he wants it.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: When he reduces it to its heave. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ila: Here in years of famine, there in years of plenty.
There, we have stated: “The center parts of watermelon and what is cleaned from vegetables of heave, Rabbi Dosa permits to laymen but the Sages forbid.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They taught that only for what is cleaned from vegetables of gardeners. But for what is cleaned from vegetables of private people, even the rabbis will agree. Rabbi Abun asked: Is it not reasonable that this refers only to the Great Heave, but for heave of the tithe torn-off leaves do not count for leaves, neither do torn-off stems for stems?
There, we have stated: “If he turned it and it accumulated, that belongs to the seller.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no “belongs to the seller” but “belongs to the buyer,” as you say here. Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, it is because of abandonment. Is it the same for consecrated food? Rabbi Abbahu came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is the same for consecrated food.
Rabbi Hoshaiah said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: That log of oil of the leper, must he give it back or not? If you say he must give it back, and he did not, he transgresses by default. If you say he need not give it back, and he did, he transgresses by excess. Rabbi Ḥinena did not say so, but Rabbi Hoshaiah said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. That log of oil of the leper belongs to those consecrated foods which can be permitted and you say he must give it back? That means, he must give back and if he did not, he transgresses by default.
Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: A pot in which heave was cooked is cleansed three times with boiling water and that is enough. Rabbi Abba said, one does not learn from this for carcass meat. Rabbi Yose said, I objected before Rabbi Abba: Heave implies a deadly sin, carcass meat is a simple prohibition, and you say so? He said to me, it follows him who says, they accepted tithes voluntarily.
Rabbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rabbi Mana: We have stated: “If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave,” and here you say so? He said to him, here through the fire it becomes inedible and disappears.
“Yeast of heave, the first and second are forbidden, the third is permitted. When has this been said? If he added water. But if he did not add water, even the third is forbidden. Yeast of second tithe, the first is forbidden but the second permitted. Rabbi Meir said, the second by imparting taste.” Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Jehozadak, the consecrated is like the accumulated.
“The clay pot of the sufferer from discharge, the first is impure but the second pure. When has this been said? If he did not put water in it, but if he put water in it even the tenth is impure.”
Rabbi Yudan, the son of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s sister, in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Less than that he puts in his fire. Rabbi Yannai in the name of Rabbi Judah: “Solid food corresponding to a lightly cooked egg. That means that the volume of an egg is valid in impurity, but pure the minutest amount must be delivered. If it is demai; but if it is certain it must be delivered impure or pure, much or little.”
Mishnah
5 Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest feeds it heave vetch. A priest who rented a cow from an Israelite may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israelite who received a cow from a priest by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A priest who received a cow from an Israelite by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the priest. If the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest regularly visits her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rabbi Meir forbids in both cases, Rabbi Simeon permits in both cases.
Halakhah
From where that a cow of a priest which was appraised at an Israelite’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says: “If a priest buys a living being with his money, etc.”Leviticus 22:11 I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they.” Some Tannaim state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek.” Did we not state: From where that a priest who bought a slave in partnership with an Israelite, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a priest buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.
“One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the priest.” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a priest. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the priest.”
Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: So far heave that fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest. Perhaps also from the heave of his own threshing floor? He said to him, who could tell you, from the heave of his own threshing floor? Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose; Rabbi Jonah followed Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Yose followed Rabbi Zeira. He who says, from the heave of his own threshing floor, may he go and light a lamp? Following him who said, heave that fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest, would he not need empowering anyhow? He said to him, when he transfers it to him through a third party.
It was stated: “If an Israelite and a priest were partners in a store, the Israelite may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor and down into the store in the business of the priest, but not his own. If a priest came to an Israelite to help him with his accounts, the latter may light oil to burn for him.” Where is the empowering? He said to them, when he transfers it to them through a third party.
It was stated: An Israelite woman who came to work for a priest, but not for an Israelite.
It was stated: “An Israelite woman who comes to a priestly woman to get fire dips her wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rabbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs; there was no court which disestablished. As you say there, there was no court which disestablished, so here there was no court which disestablished!
“If cattle of a priest was fed at an Israelite’s, or the garment of a priest being woven at an Israelite’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If a priest came to an Israelite to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the priest left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rabbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at Rabbi Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a priest, but not for an Israelite”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rabbi Ḥinena said, this happened to me; by this he awoke, by this he got up early.
Ada the nurse asked Rabbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rabbi Immi took a wick, Rabbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rabbi Ila not agree with Rabbi Immi? Rabbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.
Gamliel the twin asked Rabbi Yasa: May one add profane oil and light? He said to him, Rabbi Hoshaiah stated only that one is not required to squeeze it out.
Rabbi Abbahu said, Jonathan ben Akhmai taught me: The daughter of a priest standing Sabbath eve with a light filled with oil for burning, adds some profane oil and lights. Rabbi Zeira said, what is the nature of this? He said to him, he was a great personality, well versed in the Mishnah. Rabbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin explained this to Rabbi and he appointed him rabbi.
“One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rabbi Meir forbids in both cases, Rabbi Simeon permits in both cases.” What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In the house of Rabbi Yannai they said, practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joshia: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Yose from Sidon asked before Rabbi Jeremiah: Otherwise, what would we say? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon, does practice not follow Rabbi Simeon? He said to him, it is from the preceding paragraph. Rabbi Judah says similar to these two, Rabbi Yose says similar to those two, between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose, practice follows Rabbi Yose.
May one use oil for burning on Hanukkah? They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: One uses oil for burning on Hanukkah. Rabbi Nasa said, I never knew my father. My mother told me, your father said that he who has no profane oil may use oil for burning on Hanukkah.
Connections in Jerusalem Terumot
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.