## Jerusalem Talmud Orlah Chapter 3

###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:1)

**משנה:** בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה יִדָּלֵק. נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים כּוּלָּן יַדָּלֵקוּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Cloth dyed with ‘*orlah* shells¹ 7:3. should be burned² is forbidden for all usufruct, any product obtained by using ‘*orlah* is also forbidden.. If it became mixed up with others, all should be burned, the words of Rebbi Meїr³ 4, Note 64.; but the Sages said, it should be lifted by one in 200.

footnotes:
¹ For example, walnut shells and pomegranate skin; cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it
² Since ‘orlah
³ R. Meїr holds that anything sold by the piece is important and cannot become insignificant (Mishnah 7); the Sages hold that anything forbidden for usufruct becomes insignificant if it is less than half a percent of the total, except for a very limited list of items. In order to avoid having monetary gain from forbidden things, an amount of cloth equal in size to the forbidden piece has to be taken out and burned. For the notion of lifting, cf. Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:2)

**הלכה:** בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה יִדָּלֵק כול׳. כְּתִיב וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי בְּסָמוּךְ לְפִירְיוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי בְּעוֹרֵל אֶת פִּרְיוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר בְּעוֹרֵל אֶת פִּרְיוֹ קְלִיפִּין וְגַרְעִינִין בְּמַשְׁמַע. מָאן דְּאָמַר בְּסָמוּךְ לְפִרְיוֹ קְלִיפִּין בְּמַשְׁמַע וְלֹא גַרְעִינִין. וְגַרְעִינִין מְנַיִין. הֲוִי סוֹפָךְ מֵימָר אֶת פִּרְיוֹ בְּסָמוּךְ לְפִרְיוֹ. אִית דְּבָעֵי נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא עוֹרֵל אֶת פִּרְייוֹ וּפִרְייוֹ עוֹרְלוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Cloth dyed with ‘*orlah* shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (*Lev*. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.⁴” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits⁵. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits⁶. From where pits⁷? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.”⁸ 36b). Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.⁹ 31(1977) 187–192], the two-sheeted hyperboloid is composed of two separate surfaces. Therefore, in the spirit of the times the reformulation is appropriate.
The discussion here is hinted at in *Ma‘serot* 4:6, Note 88. The Amora quoted there, Samuel, is known as strict adherent of Ptolemaic astronomy but it seems that in the quote, he prefers the modern formulation (Note 5) to the classical. This fits with his acceptance of infinite decimal expansions as numbers (*Demay* 7:8, Note 104).

footnotes:
⁴ The problem is the word ערלתו. It seems that the verse would be perfect without it, וערלתם את פריו “you shall treat its fruit as foreskin.”
⁵ The foreskin is an envelope around the male organ which has the shape of a solid cylinder. In the opinion of this Tanna, usually a fruit has the shape of a torus, bounded at the outside by the shell or skin and at the inside by the pit. Therefore, the envelope of the fruit must have two parts, an inner and an outer one, and “envelope” designates the union of both.“Foreskin” as applied to fruits is only a metaphor since human foreskin is permanently forbidden but fruits of trees only the first three years.
⁶ He will not agree that the foreskin is an envelope but rather an outer shell since the human foreskin is only an outer shell if the male organ is considered as a cylindrical shell bounded at the inside by the urinary duct.
⁷ Since practice includes pits, where is a hint of the inclusion found in the biblical text?
⁸ This is the opinion of the Babli (Berakhot
⁹ The definition of the envelope in Note 5 is natural for modern mathematics. For Euclidean mathematics, for which all geometric figures are compact and connected [cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Axioms of Betweenness in Euclid, Dialectica


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:3)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ אַתְּ תּוֹפֵס אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה בְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הַכָּתוּב וִיפָרֵשׁ לָךְ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפִּירֵשׁ לָךְ בְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבִנְבֵילָה. מַה פִּירֵשׁ לָךְ בְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי. וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. וּמַה פִּירֵשׁ בִּנְבֵילָה. לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָּל נְבֵילָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה וּפַלִּיג. וְכִי מָה אָסְרוֹ לַכֶּלֶב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰ 2:1, fol. 28c; the parallel in the Babli is *Pesaḥim* 21b–23a. The discussion is about the prohibition of usufruct of ‘*orlah* fruits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹¹: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat¹², it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? (*Ex*. 22:30) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat¹³.” And what did it explain about a carcass? (*Deut*. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement¹⁴ 21b), Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 31) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule appealed to by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, *Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition*, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196.
Since here the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog?

footnotes:
¹⁰ The text from here to Note 44 is also in Pesaḥim
¹¹ In the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned. [But the name appears in the Munich ms. of the Babli; added from Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenheimer]
¹² Singular or plural.
¹³ The verse ends: You shall throw it to the dog. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct.
¹⁴ In the Babli (Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:4)

וְהָא כְתִיב כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מֵעַתָּה אַתָּה תוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה לְאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דִּכְתִיב וְחֵלֶב נְבֵילָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵיפָה. וְהָכְתִיב רַק אֶת הַדָּם. מֵעַתָּה אַתְּ תוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דִּכְתִיב עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. מַה מַיִם מוּתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף הַדָּם מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְהָכְתִיב עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ קִיַימְתִּיהָ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁלַּנְּבֵילָה. וְהָכְתִיב וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחֲוָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁקָּבַע לֹו הַכָּתוּב זְמָן. וְהָכְתִיב לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי שֶׁקֶץ הֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא מִיעֵט אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה שֶׁבּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But is it not written (*Lev*. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (*Lev*. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”¹⁵ 23a, the verse is needed to permit *any* use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the *Sifra*(*Ẓaw* *Paraša* 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 33), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. But is it not written (*Deut*. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.”¹⁶ 22b, deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. *Demay* 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in *Sifry Deut*. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (*Gen*. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal¹⁷ 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and torn meat was permitted for the sojourner (a monotheistic Gentile adhering to the Seven Commandments observed by Noe) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 15 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written (*Lev*. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”¹⁸ ceremony.? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (*Lev*. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct¹⁹ are abominations”, they (snakes and centipedes) are abominations but not anything manufactured from them. (Explanation of R. H. Kanievski.).

footnotes:
¹⁵ “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only you shall not eat it.” This paragraph discusses verses which present a difficulty for R. Eleazar.In the opinion of the Babli, Pesaḥim
¹⁶ “Only the blood you shall not eat; pour it on the ground like water.” The Babli, Pesaḥim
¹⁷ The argument is more explicit in the Babli, Pesaḥim
¹⁸ “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until that very day” referring to new grains before the ‘omer
¹⁹ The argument seems to be that the verse has to be read: “For they


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:5)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָעוֹשֶׂה אִיסְפְּלֵנִית מִשּׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל וּמֵחָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלּוֹ מְחוּוָּר. מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לוֹקֶה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ פֶּן תּוּקָּד אֵשׁ. מֵעָרְלָה צְרִיכָה. עֲשֶׂה לְרָחֲקוֹ כְּתִיב. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְאוֹכְלוֹ כְּתִיב. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְרָחֲקוֹ לֵית כְּתִיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing²⁰ Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox²¹ 24b, explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (*Ex.*21:28,29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct; this is derived from *Ex.* 21:28, cf. *Mekhilta Mišpaṭim* 10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard *kilaim* he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (*Deut.* 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled²² 8:1, Note 6.. For *‘orlah* it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written²³ 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any *‘orlah* fruit., a prohibition to eat is written²⁴. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לא יאכל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., a prohibition to remove it is not written²⁵.

footnotes:
²⁰ Latin splenium,
²¹ The Babli, Pesaḥim
²² Cf. Kilaim
²³ Since Lev.
²⁴ Last two words of Lev
²⁵ Transgression of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:6)

בְּמַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה כָּךְ הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. מַה עָבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדְמוּ הַבְּעָלִים וּשְׁחָטוּהוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
In a *baraita*²⁶ as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels *Pesaḥim* 28c, *Avodah Zarah* 45b. In *Mekhilta Mišpaṭim* 19; quoted in Babli *Pesaḥim*22b, *Qiddušin* 56b, *Baba Qama* 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be the rule implied by the Yerushalmi *Targum* to *Ex*. 21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (*Ex.* 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food²⁷? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced²⁸.

footnotes:
²⁶ The baraita
²⁷ As carcass meat.
²⁸ This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Yoḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:7)

רִבִּי זְעִירָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חָדָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. וְחָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so²⁹? He said to him, one in the name³⁰, Hebrew בשם instead of משמיה. The latter is an inadvertent Babylonism characteristic of learned scribes. of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

footnotes:
²⁹ He states contradictory theses, whether or not prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct.
³⁰ In the parallel in Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:8)

רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵס אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. בִּנְיַין אָב שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְכַפֵּר בַּקּוֹדֵשׁ לֹא תֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר וְחֵלֶב נְבֵילָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵיפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ אֲפִילוּ לִמְלֶאכֶת הַגָּבוֹהַּ. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹּאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִּם. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ. מָה הַמַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִין אַף הַדָּם מַכְשִׁיר. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נֲבֵילָה. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךְ שֶׁגֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת. מְמַשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אוֹתוֹ. אוֹתוֹ אַתָּה מַשְׁלִיךְ לַכֶּלֶב וְאֵי אַתָּה מַשְׁלִיךְ חוּלִין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The rabbis of Caesarea³¹, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”³². The paradigm³³ 8(5), quoted in Babli *Zebaḥim* 82a, Yerushalmi *Pesaḥim* 7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic: “Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” This is a possible reading since purification offerings can be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, “(in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned.” This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification. for all cases is (*Lev.* 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (*Lev*. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (*Lev.* 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven¹⁵ 23a, the verse is needed to permit *any* use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the *Sifra*(*Ẓaw* *Paraša* 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 33), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said (*Lev.* 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares¹⁶ 22b, deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. *Demay* 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in *Sifry Deut*. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah.. If one understands what has been said (*Deut.* 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat³⁴. If one understands what has been said (*Ex.* 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? *This* you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct³⁵ 22a, this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, *Lev*. 17:4..

footnotes:
³¹ A second version of the position of R. Joḥanan, differing from what was stated earlier.
³² The text is incomplete; it refers to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 11). If the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. That implies that the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.
³³ This proves that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct; since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood [Sifra Ẓaw Pereq
¹⁵ “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only you shall not eat it.” This paragraph discusses verses which present a difficulty for R. Eleazar.In the opinion of the Babli, Pesaḥim
¹⁶ “Only the blood you shall not eat; pour it on the ground like water.” The Babli, Pesaḥim
³⁴ The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, has only to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs torn from living animals, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.
³⁵ In the Babli, Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:9)

מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְכָךְ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַּהֲנָיָיה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. הָא מָה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל דַּבְרֵי רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. מָה אִם שְׁרָצִים קַלִּין עָשָׂה בָהֶן מַאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. חָמֵץ הֶחָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בוֹ מַאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. הָא מָה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַּהֲנָיָיה. בְּגִין דִּכְתִיב לֹא יֵאָכֵל. הָא מִלֹא תֹאכַל לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָהּ כְּלוּם. וְהָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A *baraita*³⁸ 16, p. 51. supports both of them. The *baraita* supports Rebbi Eleazar³⁹. “(*Ex.* 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater⁴⁰. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (*Deut.* 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden⁴¹. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition⁴², He made the feeder equal to the eater⁴³ 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi.; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.⁴⁴ 2:1.

footnotes:
³⁸ Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo
³⁹ The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaïtic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaïtic generation.
⁴⁰ The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.
⁴¹ This is the position of R. Eleazar.
⁴² Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation.
⁴³ Sifra Šemini Pereq
⁴⁴ Here ends the parallel with Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:10)

פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁאֵין קַרְקַע נֶאֱסַר. צָר צוּרָה בְּקַרְקַע נֶאֱסַר. צָבַע דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִים. אִילּוּ הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶוה לוֹ לֹא אָסוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ אָסְרוֹ. מִיכָּן שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ צְרִיכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is obvious that the gound cannot be forbidden⁴⁵ dyes. It is the position of the Yerushalmi that natural ground cannot be forbidden. In the case of pagan worship of sacred grounds, this means that the ground itself is always permitted but that any building or offerings deposited on the ground are forbidden for all usufruct. In that case also, the Yerushalmi (*Avodah Zarah*3:6, fol. 42d) takes the exemption of the bare ground as obvious but the Babli (*Avodah Zarah* 51b) needs a verse to exempt worshipped bare ground.. If one painted a figure on the ground it is forbidden⁴⁶. If he colored a living being, if he worshipped it, it is not forbidden⁴⁷ Yerushalmi 3:6 fol. 41d, Babli 51b) agree that living beings cannot become forbidden even by being worshipped (but they will be disqualified from becoming sacrifices.); because he colored it⁴⁸ more strict than those of idolatry? did he make it forbidden? Hence, if he colored it it is of questionable status.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ Here starts the discussion of the prohibition of usufruct from ‘orlah
⁴⁶ The bare ground cannot be used unless the painting is disfigured first.
⁴⁷ Both Talmudim (Avodah Zarah,
⁴⁸ Are the rules of ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:11)

בֶּגֶד גְּדוֹל שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ עַל מְנָת לְחוֹתְכוֹ מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ כְּמוּסְגָּר אוֹ כְּמוּחְלָט. אִין תַּעֲבְדִּינֵיהּ כְּמוּסְגָּר מוּתָּר. אִין תַּעֲבְדִּינֵיהּ כְּמוּחְלָט אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How do you treat a large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut into pieces? As one locked up or declared absolute⁴⁹. 13:47–59. When shown to a Cohen, it first has to be locked up for seven days. If in these days the discoloration has spread, the cloth is declared absolutely leprous, it must be burned and, therefore, all usufruct is forbidden. Mishnah *Nega‘im* 11:12 states that large pieces of cloth both locked up and absolute are impure. A large piece covers at least three fingers square. The difference is that if the locked-up cloth is cut into pieces none of which is “large”, all are pure since no cloth covering less than 3 fingers square can become impure. But if the large cloth is absolutely “leprous”, the impurity is not eliminated by cutting the cloth into small pieces.
The comparison of leprosy of cloth to the prohibition of *‘orlah* does not lead to a clear result.? If you treat it as locked up it is permitted, as declared absolute it will be forbidden.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ Cloth which shows a sudden change in color that cannot be eliminated by washing may be “leprous”, Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:12)

צְבָעוֹ וְחָזַר וּצְבָעוֹ וְהִקְדִּיחַ. נֹאמַר אִם הָיָה צְרִיכָה לִצְבִיעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אָסוּר. וְאִם לָאו מוּתָּר. צְבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹז שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וְחָזַר וּצְבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹז שֶׁלְחוּלִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טַעַם לִפְגָּם מוּתָּר. אוֹף הָכָא מוּתָּר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טַעַם לִפְגָּם אָסוּר. אוֹף הָכָא אָסוּר. צְבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹז שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וְחָזַר וּצְבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי רִימּוֹן שֶׁלְחוּלִין. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. עִיגּוּלֵי דְבֵילָה הַגְּדוֹלִים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים וְהַקְּטַנִּים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַגְּדוֹלִים. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא הַגְּדוֹלִים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים בְּמִשְׁקָל וְהַקְּטַנִּים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַגְּדוֹלִים בְּמִינְיָין. תַּמָּן מִין בְּמִינוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. צְבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹז שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וְחָזַר וּצְבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי חוּלִין מִין אֶחָד. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר תְּאֵנִים שְׁחוֹרוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַלְּבָנוֹת וְהַלְּבָנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת. תַּמָּן הוּא רָאוּי לְחַתְּכָן. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְחַתְּכוֹ. מָה דָמִי לָהּ. גְּזִים גְזִיזִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מָה דָמִי לָהּ. בֶּגֶד גְּדוֹל שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ עַל מְנָת לְחַתְּכוֹ. מֵיעַבְּדִינֵיהּ דּוֹדְּרְסִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he dyed it⁵⁰ dye both times. and then dyed a second time and spoiled it⁵¹ 10, Note 21)., if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘*orlah* walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden⁵² 10, Note 21)., here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with *‘orlah* walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large⁵³ 4:8, Note 68. The implication is that the cloth should be permitted if the amount of pomegranate dye is more than 200 times that of the forbidden walnut dye.?” Rav Huna⁵⁴ 4 (Note 86), Rebbi Ḥuna. The reading in *Terumot* is preferable. It is not clear what the quote should prove if not that in these cases one uses all possible ways of saving the cloth. said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with *‘orlah* walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind⁵⁵10, Notes 115 ff., can it be compared to⁵⁶ 4:8, Note 67.: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them⁵⁷ dye but a 200 times larger number is dyed with profane dye, the mixture will be permitted., but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks⁵⁸.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ With ‘orlah
⁵¹ The cloth could not be sold even if it were made with permitted dyes. If the cloth was well dyed before the second dipping, it is forbidden and anything done later cannot change its status. But if the cloth did need a second dying anyhow, if then it was spoiled it was spoiled by the second action, both dyings were damaging and do not prohibit its use following R. Simeon (Terumot
⁵² Rebbi Meïr (Terumot
⁵³ Terumot
⁵⁴ In Terumot
⁵⁵ This case should be treated by the rules of insignificance; cf. Terumot
⁵⁶ Terumot
⁵⁷ If all figs are cut into small pieces, the entire mixture is simply figs. It follows that if the cloth is not dyed whole but cut into little pieces, of which a small number is dyed with ‘orlah
⁵⁸ He will permit use if only a small part of the cloth was dipped into the vat of forbidden dye, then the larger part was dyed with profane dye, and only after that was made into strips which could be sewn into a kind of socks (which in Medieval rabbinic Hebrew are called בתי רגלים “houses for the feet”.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:13)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סַמְמָנִין בְּסַמְמָנִין בְּטֵילִין בְּמָאתַיִם. מֵי צְבָעִים בְּמֵי צְבָעִים בְּטֵילִין בְּרוֹב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, pigments in pigments become insignificant in 200. Fluid dyes in fluid dyes by a majority⁵⁹.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ The permitted dyes plus the water used in both fluids are more than 200 times the forbidden dissolved pigment.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:14)

אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. הֲנָיַית עָרְלָה בְּטִיבֵּרִיָּא בְּרוֹב. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה יִדָּלֵק. פָּתַר לָהּ קְרִיוָה בִקְדֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִיסְבּוֹר סָבַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. שֶׁמּוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן בִּתְחִילָּה לֹא לְשֶׁעָבַר. מַיי כְדוֹן. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לִצְבּוֹעַ. אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הַהֵיתֵר כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ. אוֹתוֹ הָאִיסּוּר שֶׁבּוֹ כְדֵי לֶאֱסוֹר. אִם אֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לִצְבֹּעַ. אַתְּ רוֹאֶה הַהֵיתֵר כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ. אוֹתוֹ הָאִיסּוּר אֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לֶאֱסוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of *‘orlah* in Tiberias⁶⁰ may be used if mixed with a larger amount of permitted dye, but that dyestuff prepared by cooking profane pigment with *‘orlah* fuel, whose prohibition is only secondary, can be used if mixed with a larger amount of regular profane dyestuff. [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah⁶¹ prohibits even as fuel, the leniency of R. Abba bar Mamal is hard to understand. In this respect, there is no difference between cooking food and boiling for dyeing. disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with *‘orlah* shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel⁶² 17:6. The word is explained by Rashi and R. Ḥananel to mean “gourd”; in particular a hollowed gourd used as a vessel. Only Maimonides’s explanation makes sense here. One (smaller?) vessel was used with *‘orlah* fuel; many larger pots were used for the other dyestuffs. among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past⁶³ 2:7, Note 162; cf. also Notes 114, 118 in Chapter 2.. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ We are not informed about the special techniques used by Tiberian dyers. Therefore, the meaning of this statement cannot be determined. The meaning of the sentence seems to be, not that ‘orlah
⁶¹ Mishnah 3:4. If ‘orlah
⁶² Explanation of Maimonides in Mishnah Šabbat
⁶³ The previous explanation is unacceptable. It is forbidden to remove a prohibition by intentionally mixing forbidden and permitted matter. It is only a problem if the mixture was done inadvertently. Then R. Abba bar Mamal permits if a majority is permitted, as explained in Note 60. The argument used to prove this legitimate is modelled on that explained in ‘Orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:15)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵילּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְגּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה. הַיַּיִן. וְהַחוֹמֶץ שֶׁלְגּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ יַיִן. וְחֶרֶס הַדְרִיָינִי. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי חֶרֶס הַדְרִיָינִי אָסוּר וְאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁנְּתָנוֹ בְתַבְשִׁיל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אִם בְּשֶׁמְּכָרוֹ חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יַיִן נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁנְּתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תַבְשִׁיל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁶⁴ 2:3, fol. 41b. Neither of the two text is without problems. There⁶⁵ 2:3., we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine⁶⁶, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery⁶⁷ 32a) explains that this is very porous pottery which Roman soldiers used to soak in wine and carry with them, so it could be soaked in water and provide a taste of wine. There is no explanation of the term in the Yerushalmi.
Perhaps the word has nothing to do with Adria, Adrianoi in Mysia, or the emperor Hadrian, and should be read הֻדְרִייָני “wine pots”, from Greek ὑδρία, ἡ, “water pot; vessel, wine pot” (Liddel Scott) (E. G.)..” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah⁶⁸, is impossible since R. Jeremiah was R. Zeïra’s student. Either the two names should be switched, or the second author is Rav Jeremiah (an unlikely scenario given the difference in time), or it should be “R. Joḥanan” instead of “R. Jeremiah”. The original formulation cannot be recovered.: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct⁶⁸, is impossible since R. Jeremiah was R. Zeïra’s student. Either the two names should be switched, or the second author is Rav Jeremiah (an unlikely scenario given the difference in time), or it should be “R. Joḥanan” instead of “R. Jeremiah”. The original formulation cannot be recovered.. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden⁶⁹. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish⁷⁰.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ This and the following paragraph have parallels in Avodah Zarah
⁶⁵ Mishnah Avodah Zarah
⁶⁶ Since wine might have been used for a Gentile libation, it is forbidden as ancillary to idolatreous practices. Once it is forbidden, it cannot become permitted even if the wine spoils and becomes vinegar.
⁶⁷ The Babli (Avodah Zarah
⁶⁸ This name tradition, also preserved in Avodah Zarah
⁶⁸ This name tradition, also preserved in Avodah Zarah
⁶⁹ Since the forbidden wine will leach out into the dish.
⁷⁰ As a pan-cover.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:16)

מָהוּ לִסְמוֹךְ בּוֹ כַרְעֵי הַמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הָהֵן בֶּגֶד דְּתַנִּינָן הָכָא מָהוּ לִסְמוֹךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַמִּיטָּה. וְאִיקְפִּד לְקוֹבְּלֵיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֲפִילוּ לְמָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן מוּתָּר. הָכָא אָסוּר. תַּמָּן אֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ נִיכָּר. בְּרַם הָכָא אִיסּוּרוֹ נִיכָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May it⁷¹ be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden⁷²; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted⁷³. Rebbi Jonah⁷⁴: R. Jeremiah. While the reading here is not impossible, the one in *Avodah Zarah* is more probable. asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth⁷⁵ dyes., which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible⁷⁶, here the prohibition is visible.

footnotes:
⁷¹ “Hadrianic” pottery. The feet of a couch were often standing in vessels filled with water to protect the sleeper from worms and insects.
⁷² It certainly is usufruct.
⁷³ It is a use of the pottery, not of the absorbed wine, and therefore legitimate.
⁷⁴ In Avodah Zarah
⁷⁵ Died in ‘orlah
⁷⁶ The legs of the couch do not touch the forbidden particles of wine.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:1:17)

אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. כַּד נַחְתִּית מִן אִילְפָא שְׁמָעִית קָלֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא יְתִיב מַתְנֵי. בֶּגֶד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ בִּקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה יִדָּלֵק. וְתַנִּינָן נָטַל הִימֶינָה כֶּרְכִּד אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. אָרַג בּוֹ אֶת הַבֶּגֶד אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. יַיִן נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְתַנִּינָן רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יִימָּכֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגוֹי חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יַיִן נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב. חַגַּיי קְשָׁתָיהּ רִבִּי חַגַּיי קִיְימָהּ. מַיי כְדוֹן. תַּמָּן אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִיקַּח יַיִן מִן הַגּוֹי. בְּרַם הָכָא דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִיקַּח בֶּגֶד מִן הַגּוֹי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with *‘orlah* shells should be burned.” But did we not state⁷⁸ 3:9.: “If one took from it⁷⁹ {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. ⁸⁰ 5:10. The question is: Why are textiles produced or processed with forbidden materials totally forbidden but wine mixed with forbidden wine, while unusable for Jews, can be sold if only the Jewish owner is not paid for the forbidden part? Why could the cloth not be sold for its value minus the cost of dying? If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state⁸⁰ 5:10. The question is: Why are textiles produced or processed with forbidden materials totally forbidden but wine mixed with forbidden wine, while unusable for Jews, can be sold if only the Jewish owner is not paid for the forbidden part? Why could the cloth not be sold for its value minus the cost of dying?: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles⁸¹. 19:14).; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ Mishnah Avodah Zarah
⁷⁹ A tree in a Gentile holy grove, whose wood is forbidden as accessory to idolatry.
⁸⁰ Mishnah Avodah Zarah
⁸⁰ Mishnah Avodah Zarah
⁸¹ Gentile wine is automatically forbidden. It might be possible to sell the cloth for the price of undyed cloth; but it is forbidden to bring into circulation anything which might cause a Jew to commit an inadvertant sin. That would be transgressing the commandment “not to put an obstacle into the path of a blind person” (Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:2:1)

**משנה:** הַצּוֹבֵעַ מְלֹא הַסִּיט בִּקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה וַאֲרָגוֹ בַבֶּגֶד וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה הוּא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יִדָּלֵק הַבֶּגֶד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יַעֲלֶה בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. הָאוֹרֵג מְלֹא הַסִּיט מִצֶּמֶר הַבְּכוֹר בְּבֶגֶד יִדָּלֵק הַבֶּגֶד. וּמִשֵּׂיעָר הַנָּזִיר וּמִפֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בַּשַּׂק יִדָּלֵק הַשַּׂק. וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁין מְקַדְּשִׁין כָּל שֶׁהֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a *sîṭ*⁸² with hand-breadth (סילוק לשבת שקלים). R. Ḥananel (followed by *Arukh*), defines *sîṭ* as half a hand-breadth. Rashi (*Šabbat* 106a) following the Babli defines *sîṭ* as the distance spanned between thumb and index finger; this is also the definition of Maimonides.. with *‘orlah* shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200.
If somebody weaves the length of a *sîṭ* of firstling’s wool⁸³. 15:19). Since a firstling is a sacrifice, nothing from it, other than its meat, may be used. in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a *nazir*⁸⁴ well-being sacrifice (*Num*. 6:18). or firstling donkey⁸⁵. 13:13. After redemption, the firstling donkey is fully profane. in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified⁸⁶, second paragraph.) it sanctifies in the most minute amount.

footnotes:
⁸² Eleazar Qalir, who represents the Yerushalmi tradition, identifies sîṭ
⁸³ A firstling may not be shorn (Deut
⁸⁴ It must be used to cook the nazir’s
⁸⁵ Only if the donkey was not redeemed by a lamb, Ex
⁸⁶ All sacrifices other than firstlings need a dedication, the “sanctification”. After dedication any profane use is strictly forbidden (cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:2:2)

**הלכה:** מָאן תַּנָּא סִיט. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין הוּא סִיט הוּא פָחוֹת מִסִּיט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Who stated “*sîṭ*”? Rebbi Meïr! But for the Sages, *sîṭ* or less than a *sîṭ* follow the same rules⁸⁷.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ The permitted thread must be more than 200 times the forbidden length.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:2:3)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר לֵיהּ מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. צֶמֶר בְּכוֹר שֶׁטְּרָפוֹ בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אַיְתֵיהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה צִיפּוֹרָאָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי. לִיטְרָא בִשְׁמוֹנָה וְלֹא הוֹרֵי אִילּוּלֹא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הָאוֹרֵג מְלוֹא הַסִּיט מִצֶּמֶר הַבְּכוֹר בְּבֶגֶד יִדָּלֵק הַבֶּגֶד. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ אִיתְתָּבַת תַּמָן אִית הֲוָות יְאוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁸⁹ 6:6 and *Avodah Zarah* 5:12. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality⁹⁰. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean⁹¹ brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight⁹² but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi⁹³ said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a *sîṭ* of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct⁹⁴ 5:12) whether unprocessed forbidden materials could be made insignificant in permitted ones. Since in the meantime it was ruled that processing does not make any difference, you (R. Ḥiyya the Sepphorean) cannot object now..

footnotes:
⁸⁹ Partial parallels are in Ketubot
⁹⁰ The Mishnah decrees that minute quantities make forbidden only after the wool is processed.
⁹¹ He appears only here.
⁹² One pound of firstling wool mixed with eight pounds of profane wool.
⁹³ While he reports the opinion of R. Joḥanan, he personally objects to it and holds that processed and unprocessed wool follow the same rules.
⁹⁴ When the question was asked (Avodah Zarah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:2:4)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין. וְתַנִּינָן אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּקְבָּרִין. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר יִשָּׂרֵפוּ וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר יִקָּבֵרוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּאן בְּשַׂק כַּאן בְּשִׂיעֵר. מָה בֵין שַׂק מָה בֵין שִׂיעֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל שַׂק מָצוּי לְחַטְחֵט אֲחָרָיו. שִׂיעֵר אֵין מָצוּי לְחַטְחֵט אֲחָרָיו. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּאן בְּמִקְדָּשׁ כָּאן בִּגְבוּלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר. כָּאן בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר כָּאן בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא. וְהָתַנִּינָן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר כָּאן בְּמִקְדָּשׁ כָּאן בִּגְבוּלִין. כָּאן בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר כָּאן בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא. אֶלָּא כָּאן בְּשַׂק וְכָאן בְּשִׂיעֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. הֵן דְּתֵימַר יִשָּׂרֵף. שְׂעָרוֹ. הֵן דְּתֵימַר יִיקָּבֵר. גּוּפוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated: “These have to be burned⁹⁵ 7:5. The list includes *‘orlah* and vineyard *kilaim.*.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.⁹⁶ 7:4. The list includes the hair of a *nazir* and the (unredeemed) firstling donkey. The “hair of a *nazir*” must refer to an impure *nazir* who must shave before starting a new period (*Num.* 6:9) since the pure hair must be burned under the well-being sacrifice.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried⁹⁷, the *nazir’s* hair must be buried but in the Mishnah here, sackcloth made from such hair must be burned.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out⁹⁸, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple⁹⁹ hair which must be burned by biblical decree., there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure *nazir*, there about an impure *nazir*. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”¹⁰⁰? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure *nazir*, there about an impure *nazir*? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair¹⁰¹; when one says it has to be buried, its body¹⁰².

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Mishnah Temurah
⁹⁶ Mishnah Temurah
⁹⁷ In Mishnah Temurah
⁹⁸ Therefore it must be burned by rabbinic decree.
⁹⁹ By necessiṭy this refers to pure nazir’s
¹⁰⁰ It cannot be brought to the Temple and cannot be impure as long as it lives nor can it be pure in death.
¹⁰¹ The firstling donkey’s.
¹⁰² If the owner prefers to kill the firstling donkey rather than give a lamb to a Cohen as redemption.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:2:5)

וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁין מְקַדְּשִׁין כָּל שֶׁהֵן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בָּקֳדָשִׁים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַתִּירִין. אֲבָל בָּקֳדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן מַתִּירִין צְרִיכִין סִיט. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא. הָאוֹרֵג מְלֹא הַסִּיט מִצֶּמֶר הַבְּכוֹר בְּבֶגֶד יִדָּלֵק הַבֶּגֶד. וּבְכוֹר לֹא כָקֳדָשִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַתִּירִין הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose¹⁰³ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted¹⁰⁴. But sacrifices that never will be permitted¹⁰⁵ need a *sîṭ*. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a *sîṭ* of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted¹⁰⁶ 5:4 (discussed in Babli *Bekhorot* 26a/b), where everybody agrees that a firstling which has been declared blemished has become profane in the hand of the Cohen. Even a blemished firstling can be used only for food but after slaughter the hide (whether from an unblemished or a blemished animal) can legally be shorn. The disagreement is if it was shorn before being slaughtered, where for Aqabia ben Mehallalel the slaughter retroactively legitimates the shearing but for the Sages the wool is forbidden by rabbinic decree, so people would not raise firstlings. The question is not answered since, for the Sages, hair taken prematurely is sanctified and will never be permitted.?

footnotes:
¹⁰³ This probably should be יסא ר׳.
¹⁰⁴ Sacrifices which can be redeemed and the money used for substitute sacrifices. Therefore, no leniency is required there.
¹⁰⁵ Sacrifices slaughtered in the Temple.
¹⁰⁶ This refers to a disagreement in Mishnah Idiut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:2:6)

אִית דְּתַנֵּי לָהּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אִית דְּלָא תַנֵּי לָהּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מָאן דְּתַנֵּי לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר אִית לֵיהּ עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים מְקַדְּשִׁין. מָאן דְּלָא תַנֵּי לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר מְנָן אִית לֵיהּ עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים מְקַדְּשִׁין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁלְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Some state this¹⁰⁷ in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify¹⁰⁸. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves¹⁰⁹.”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ Mishnah 3.
¹⁰⁸ They sanctify in the most minute amounts and cannot be lifted. These include the six items listed in Mishnah 7 and the items forbidden in Mishnaiot 3,4,5,6, where Mishnah 3 is counted as one item.
¹⁰⁹ This would leave seven items in Mishnah 7 and Mishnaiot 4,5,6 for a total of 10.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:3:1)

**משנה:** תַּבְשִׁיל שֶּׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ בִקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה יִדָּלֵק. נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים יַעֲלֶה בְאֶחַד וּמָאתַיִם. תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בִקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה וְאָפָה בוֹ אֶת הַפַּת תִּידָּלֵק הַפַּת. נִתְעָרְבָה בַּאֲחֵרוֹת תַּעֲלֶה בְאֶחַד וּמָאתַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A dish cooked with *‘orlah* shells¹¹⁰ must be burned. If it was mixed with mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200¹¹¹.
If one heated an oven with *‘orlah* shells and used it to bake bread, the bread must be burned. If it was mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200¹¹¹.

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ As fuel.
¹¹¹ Here even R. Meїr will agree since the value added is insignificant.
¹¹¹ Here even R. Meїr will agree since the value added is insignificant.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:3:2)

**הלכה:** אַבָּא בַר יִרְמְיָה כַּהֲנָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. גִּידּוּלֵי עָרְלָה שֶׁעִימְמוּ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. אִם חָדָשׁ יוּתָּץ. אִם יָשָׁן יוּצָּן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר לֵית כָּן. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר אִית כָּן. בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא עֵצִים לַחִים וְנִיגְבוּ בִקְלִיפֵּי עָרְלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah¹¹² in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed *‘orlah* growth¹¹³ wood used as coals which now is in the process of being spent. This is considered as already spent and the ashes of everything forbidden for usufruct are permitted except ashes of idolatrous objects. is permitted. Is that not a *baraita*¹¹⁴ is always quoted in this abbreviated form; cf. also Babli, *Pesaḥim* 26b and Mishnah *Avodah Zarah* 3:4. The basic text is Tosephta *‘Orlah* 7: “A (clay) oven heated with *‘orlah* shells if it is new (never before heated) must be torn down (since by the first firing it becomes usable); if it is old it must be cooled (not to profit from the *‘orlah* fire.) If he baked or cooked with charcoal (*of* *‘orlah*, which can be considered spent wood) it is permitted. The ashes of anything (forbidden for usufruct) are permitted except the ashes of a holy tree (since it is *ḥerem*). The ashes of clothes affected with mold disease (*Lev*. 13:47–59) and the dust from a leprous house (*Lev*. 33:53) are forbidden for usufruct.” The last sentence of the Tosephta leads up to the next paragraph.: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with *‘orlah* shells.

footnotes:
¹¹² He is mentioned only here.
¹¹³ ‘Orlah
¹¹⁴ In the Yerushalmi, that baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:3:3)

אֲבָנִים מְנוּגָּעוֹת שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן סִיד. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי עָלוּ מִטּוּמְאָתָן. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי לֹא עָלוּ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן. מָאן דְּאָמַר עָלוּ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָלוּ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר עָלוּ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת. דִּכְתִיב צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת. תֵּן בּוֹ מְאֵירָה וְאַל תֵיהֱנֶה מִמֶּנּוּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הַנִּשְׂרָפִין אֲפָרָן מוּתָּר חוּץ מֵאֵפֶר הַבָּא מַחְמַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָתִיב רִבִּי חִיָיה בַר יוֹסֵף קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲרֵי אֵפֶר הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָסוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ שַׁנְיָיה הִיא. דִּכְתִיב נְתִיצָּה נְתִיצָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity¹¹⁵; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted¹¹⁶, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (*Lev*. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes¹¹⁷ of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down¹¹⁸. 12:3), including the ashes of holy trees, for the leprous house the root נתץ (*Lev*. 14:45) must mean the same (cf. *Berakhot* 7, Note 41)..”

footnotes:
¹¹⁵ Since they are no longer stones.
¹¹⁶ For usufruct.
¹¹⁷ The lime produced by burning limestone.
¹¹⁸ Since for idolatry the same root implies prohibition of usufruct (Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:4:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲבִילֵי תִלְתָּן שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם יִדָּלֵקוּ. נִתְעָרְבוּ בַאֲחֵרִים כּוּלָּם יִדָּלֵקוּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יַעֲלוּ בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. שֶּׁהָיָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִימָּנוֹת מְקַדֵּשׁ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר שִׁבְעָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard *kilaim*¹¹⁹, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted¹²⁰ sanctifies¹²¹; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven¹²².

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ Of which all usufruct is forbidden.
¹²⁰ I. e., sold by the piece.
¹²¹ Makes all usufruct forbidden in the most minute amount.
¹²² Enumerated in the next Mishnah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:4:2)

**הלכה:** וְכַמָּה הִיא חֲבִילָה עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה זֵירִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אַרְבַּע מִינְהֵן מִיטָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** How much is a bundle? 25 plants. Rebbi Jonah said, four to a bed¹²³ 10:5, Notes 52,53. Fenugreek is never sold by the piece ib quantities less than a bundle. In *Terumot*, R. Joḥanan is mentioned instead of R. Jonah..

footnotes:
¹²³ This is from Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:4:3)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲשָׂרָה דְבָרִים מְקַדְּשִׁין. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים מְקַדְּשִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר שְׁמוּעָתָא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲשָׂרָה דְבָרִים מְקַדְּשִׁין. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ רִימּוֹנֵי בָדָן וַחֲצִירֵי גֶבַע אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּהוּ מִתְעַשְּׂרִין וַדַּאי בְּכָל מָקוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify¹⁰⁸; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things¹³¹ sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition¹³². A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there¹³³17:4. The Mishnah refers to the rule that a vessel which has a hole the size of an average pomegranate is no longer considered a vessel and cannot be impure. There is a discussion whether “average pomegranate” means “Badan pomegranate.”: “Rebbi Jehudah¹³⁴ said, Badan pomegranates and Geba¹³⁵ for heave and tithes.
The reading חצירי is that of the scribe of the ms. who corrected it to חריצי, the form found in the Venice text. The text in *Kelim* reads חצירי “leeks”; neither Hebrew חריץ “incision, furrow”, nor Arabic ח̇רצ “palm branch” make any sense here. leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ They sanctify in the most minute amounts and cannot be lifted. These include the six items listed in Mishnah 7 and the items forbidden in Mishnaiot 3,4,5,6, where Mishnah 3 is counted as one item.
¹³¹ Sold by the piece.
¹³² The interpretation of statement of R. Meïr was already a tannaïtic problem.
¹³³ Kelim
¹³⁴ In the Mishnah: R. Yose. This reading seems to be the correct one since R. Yose is the youngest of all Tannaïm mentioned there, is mentioned last, and practice follows him.
¹³⁵ This Geba is an otherwise unidentified place in Samaria. Since Badan and Geba are in Samaria and Samaritans never tithe produce for sale and reject the notion of heave and tithes for produce other than grain, wine, and olive oil, one knows that pomegranates and leeks are subject to heave and tithing since Samaritans are a Jewish sect, and their produce is certainly ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:4:4)

וּשְׁאָר כָּל הָרִימּוֹנִין אֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהִימָּנוֹת. אֶלָּא רִימּוֹנֵי בָדָן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן חֲבִיבִין דַּרְכָּן לְהִימָּנוֹת. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הָרִימּוֹנִין עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין חֲבִיבִין אֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהִימָּנוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Does one not count other pomegranates? But Badan pomegranates one usually counts because they are preferred; other pomegranates one does not usually count because they are not preferred.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:5:1)

**משנה:** וְאֵילּוּ הֵן אֱיגוֹזֵי פֶרֶךְ וְרִימּוֹנֵי בָדָן. וְחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת. וְחוּלְפוֹת תְּרָדִין. וְקוּלְסֵי כְרוּב וּדְלַעַת יְוָנִית. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁלְבַּעַל הַבַּיִת. הָרָאוּי לְעָרְלָה עָרְלָה לְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** They are: Breakable walnuts¹²⁴#11 (ed. M. Friedmann, Wien 1880, p. 42b) there are three kinds of walnuts: Those with breakable shells (which do not need a nutcracker), normal ones, and those with extra hard shells. and pomegranates from Badan¹²⁵, sealed amphoras¹²⁶, beet roots¹²⁷ 1:4 according to J. N. Epstein defines as spines of beet greens; he reads the Arabic definition as a gloss אלצלעא אלסִלק; the traditional reading is אצל אלסלק “beet root”. Meïri (*Beẓah*, ed. Lange-Schlesinger, Jerusalem 1965, p. 22) explains as: “A kind of beet which is not smooth but somewhat hairy, which is rough to the touch and very red; the expression חלפי comes from Alfalfa.”, heads of cabbage¹²⁸ כרוב., and Greek gourd. Rebbi Aqiba says, also non-commercial loaves¹²⁹. This refers to *‘orlah* and vineyard *kilaim,* as the case may be¹³⁰ the last four may be forbidden as vineyard *kilaim.*.

footnotes:
¹²⁴ According to Pesiqta Rabbati
¹²⁵ From Wadi Badya, between Nablus and Damieh.
¹²⁶ Of wine.
¹²⁷ The Gaonic commentary to Uqeẓin
¹²⁸ According to I. Löw, this is a double Latin-Hebrew expression caulis
¹²⁹ Bread baked at home; not baked in large series.
¹³⁰ The first three items may be ‘orlah,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:5:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי. הָא שְׁקֵידֵי פֶרֶךְ לֹא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Jonah asked: Therefore, not breakable almonds¹³⁶?

footnotes:
¹³⁶ Since almonds are not included in the Mishnah, they are assumed to be sold by weight.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:5:3)

מַתְנִיתָא בִּסְתוּמָה בֵּין הַסְּתוּמוֹת. אֲבָל סְתוּמָה בֵּין הַפְּתוּחוֹת וְנִפְתְּחָה אוֹ פְתוּחָה בֵּין הַסְּתוּמוֹת וְנִסְתְּמָה צְרִיכוֹת שִׁיעוּר אֶחָד. הֵיךְ אֶיפְשָׁר לִפְתוּחָה אֶצֶל הַסְּתוּמוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. תִּיפְתָּר בִּפְתוּחָה אֶצֶל הַחֶנְוָונִי שֶׁהִיא כִסְתוּמָה אֶצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְהָתַנִּי וְנִסְתְּמָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁחָזַר [בַּעַל הַבַּיִת] וּנְטָלָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah is about sealed¹³⁷ among sealed. But a sealed one among open ones which was opened, or an open one among sealed ones which was sealed again need a measure¹³⁸, 1 in 200 for *‘orlah*. When the sealed one was sealed among open amphoras, it was recognizable and no problem existed. This eliminates the rule that the barrel could never become insignificant.. How is an open one among sealed ones possible? Rebbi Zeïra said, explain as open at the grocer’s and sealed at the private person’s¹³⁹. But did we not state “it was sealed again”? Explain it if the private person came and took it back.

footnotes:
¹³⁷ Amphoras.
¹³⁸ 1 in 100 for kilaim
¹³⁹ It really is sealed all the time but since the seal of a private producer is flimsy compared to that of a winery which must prepare its amphoras for transport over longer distances, the grocer considers it as open since very little time will be needed to open it when necessary.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:5:4)

רִבִּי קְרִיסְפָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל אִילֵּין קִירָיָיא וְקִרְוָותָא דַאֲנָן אָכְלִין דְּלַעַת יְוָונִית אִינּוּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All these gourds and pumpkins we eat fall under the rules of Greek gourd.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:5:5)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן אָמְרִין הָרָאוּי לִתְרוּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרוּמָה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּכֹּל. עָרְלָה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בַּכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rebbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, *‘orlah* does not always apply¹⁴⁰ and untithed Badan pomegranates mixed with tithed ones always make *ṭevel* irrespective of the amounts. But their place is not in the Mishnah since “as the case may be” does not apply to heave which is a rabbinic obligation on all produce..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ It is true that the rules of the Mishnah also apply to ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:6:1)

**משנה:** נִתְפַּצְּעוּ הָאֱגוֹזִים נִתְפָּרְדוּ הָרִימּוֹנִים נִתְפַּתְּחוּ הֶחָבִיּוֹת נֶחְתְּכוּ הַדִּלּוּעִים נִתְפָּרְשׂוּ הַכִּכָּרוֹת יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If the walnuts were broken, the pomegranates dispersed¹⁴¹, the amphoras opened, the gourds cut, the loaves broken, they may be lifted by one in 200.

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ The shell was removed and the pomegranate broken into single berries, in all these cases, the items are sold by amount (weight or volume), not by piece.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:6:2)

**הלכה:** נָפְלוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְפַּצְּעוּ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד לֹא יַעֲלוּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד יַעֲלוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שׁוֹגֵג יַעֲלוּ מֵזִיד לֹא יַעֲלוּ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. קָנְסוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִפְּנֵי מֵזִיד. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. כְּבָר קְנָסוֹ בְיָדוֹ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין שֶׁרִיבָה עֲלֵיהֶן שׁוֹגֵג מוּתָּר. מֵזִיד אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** If they fell down¹⁴². Whole ones all were forbidden. Broken they are not more valuable than any other broken walnuts. Can they be lifted by 1 in 200? and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose¹⁴³ 54b, this is reported as the common opinion of RR. Jehudah, Yose, and Simeon. says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine¹⁴⁴. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added¹⁴⁵ 2:3., unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

footnotes:
¹⁴² Breakable walnuts among which was one of ‘orlah
¹⁴³ In the parallel Babli Giṭṭin
¹⁴⁴ Since he can sell the broken walnuts only for the price of regular nuts, he already has suffered monetary loss. (This opinion is not quoted in the Babli.)
¹⁴⁵ And now the mixture is permitted according to the rules; cf. also Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:6:3)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים חָבִיּוֹת. נִתְפַּתְּחוּ מֵאָה מוּתָּרוֹת. חֲמִשִּׁים אֲסוּרוֹת. וְהַשְּׁאָר לִכְשֶׁיִּפָּתֵחוּ יְהוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיִּפָּתֵחוּ הָא לְפַתֵּחַ לְכַתְּחִילָּה אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁴⁶ 4:8, Note 83, and *‘Orlah* 1:5, Note 165. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden; this remainder will be permitted if they have been opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “*if* they have been opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁶ This is from Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:6:4)

דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי שְׁאָלִין. דְּלַעַת שְׁלָקָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ מָהוּ שֶתִּטְבּוֹל לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. לֵוִי שָׁאַל מָהוּ שֶׁתְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין. שְׁלָקָהּ בִּמְחוּתֶּכֶת הִיא. מִילְתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר שֶׁהִיא מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאָבִיהֶן מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין. וְהָרוֹדֶה מֵהֶן בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
They asked at the House of Rebbi Yannai: Does a gourd which was cooked¹⁴⁷ The ms. has שלקטה “which he collected”. In the version of the ms. the question is trivial. Since gourds are sold by the piece, the collection of the gourd is the end of processing and, since it may be taken directly to market, it immediately becomes subject to heave and tithes. Therefore, the version of the print is preferable. Since gourds grow on very long tendrils, it is possible in principle to cook the gourd while it is still connected to its root. while connected to the ground create *ṭevel* for tithes? Levi asked, can it become impure as food? If it was cooked it is as if cut into pieces¹⁴⁸. The word of Samuel says that it becomes impure as food, as Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Samuel¹⁴⁹ 127b where it is pointed out that in general fruits become food only when harvested. Raisins on the vine are food regarding impurity but not yet food regarding the Sabbath. The Tosephta (*Uqeẓin* 2:11) notes that any other shriveled fruit on the branch is not food.: Figs and raisins which shriveled on the tree may become impure as food and anybody who takes them down on the Sabbath is guilty of harvesting.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ The text follows the editio princeps.
¹⁴⁸ Being treated as food makes it subject to the impurity of food.
¹⁴⁹ Quoted in Babli Ḥulin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:6:5)

נִתְפָּרְסוּ כִּכָּרוֹת. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If the loaves were broken”. The Mishnah is Rebbi Aqiba’s since “Rebbi Aqiba says, also non-commercial loaves.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:1)

**משנה:** סְפֵק הֶעָרְלָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרִיָיא מוּתָּר. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט. כֶּרֶם נָטוּעַ יָרָק וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ. בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרִיָיא מוּתָּר וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקוֹט בְּיָד. הֶחָדָשׁ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהֶעָרְלָה הֲלָכָה. וְהַכִּלְאַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A doubtful case of *‘orlah* in the Land of Israel is forbidden¹⁵⁰, in Syria¹⁵¹ 7, Note 119. permitted, and outside the Land one goes and buys on condition he not see the harvesting being done¹⁵². If a vineyard is planted with vegetables and vegetables are sold on the outside¹⁵³, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land he goes and harvests on condition he not harvest with his own hands¹⁵⁴. New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah¹⁵⁵23:9–14., *‘orlah* from practice, and *kilaim* by rabbinic decree.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ Since in all cases of doubt about a biblical law one has to be restrictive.
¹⁵¹ The part of the Promised Land not conquered by Joshua, cf. Peah
¹⁵² On condition he (the Jewish buyer) not see him (the Gentile seller).
¹⁵³ One has to assume that the vegetables sold outside the vineyard were grown in the vineyard and are vineyard kilaim.
¹⁵⁴ He (the Gentile seller) harvests on condition that he (the Jewish buyer) not harvest himself, but the Jew may see the Gentile harvesting.
¹⁵⁵ Grain from the winter harvest before the ceremony of the ‘omer, Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:2)

**הלכה:** אֵי זֶהוּ סְפֵק הֶעָרְלָה. כֶּרֶם שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וַעֲנָבִים נִמְכָּרוֹת חוּצָה לוֹ. בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרִיָא מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אַף זֶה סְפֵיקוֹ אָסוּר בְּסוּרִיָּא. אֵי זֶהוּ סָפֵק הַמּוּתָּר בְּסוּרִיָּא. כֶּרֶם שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וְכֶרֶם אַחֵר בְּצִידּוֹ וַעֲנָבִים נִמְכָּרוֹת חוּצָה לוֹ. בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרִיָיא מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אַף זֶה אָסוּר בְּסוּרִיָּא. אֵי זֶה סָפֵק הַמּוּתָּר בְּסוּרִיָּא. כֶּרֶם נָטוּעַ יָרָק וּשְׂדֵה יָרָק אַחֵר בְּצִידּוֹ וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ. בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר וּבְסוּרִיָא מוּתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What is a doubtful case of *‘orlah?* An *‘orlah* vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. ¹⁵⁶“Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

footnotes:
¹⁵⁶ Tosephta 4. “That also” is the scenario of the Mishnah regarding vineyard kilaim.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:3)

וּבְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקוֹט בְּיָד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן עוֹד הִיא בְּקַדְמִיָיתָא חוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Outside the Land he goes, he harvests on condition that he not harvest with his own hands¹⁵⁴.” Rebbi Yudan said, that also should be equal to the first, “he turns in and buys on condition he not see him harvesting¹⁵².”

footnotes:
¹⁵⁴ He (the Gentile seller) harvests on condition that he (the Jewish buyer) not harvest himself, but the Jew may see the Gentile harvesting.
¹⁵² On condition he (the Jewish buyer) not see him (the Gentile seller).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:4)

הֶחָדָשׁ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן כָּל מִצְוָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ תְלוּיָה בָאָרֶץ נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְכָל שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָיה בָאָרֶץ אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָאָרֶץ חוּץ מִן הֶעָרְלָה וּמִן הַכִּלְאַיִם. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אַף הֶחָדָשׁ. מָה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. בְּכָל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מָה מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנִין טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בְּכָל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם. בֶּחָדָשׁ שֶׁכָּן שֶּׁיָּצָא בַחוּץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer’s as we have stated there¹⁵⁷ 1:9. The parallel discussion is in the Babli, *Qiddušin* 38a/b.: “Any commandment not connected with the Land applies both inside and outside the Land. But any connected with the Land applies only inside the Land except for *‘orlah* and *kilaim.* Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer¹⁵⁸ 1:9, fol. 61d.? Everywhere, (*Lev.* 23:14) “in all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁷ Mishnah Qiddušin
¹⁵⁸ The end of this paragraph and the next one are also in Qiddušin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:5)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן אַף הַחַלָּה עִמָּהֶן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא אֲתִינָן מַתְנִיתִין אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא נוֹהֵג בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַגּוֹיִם. וְחַלָּה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. דִּכְתִיב רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא שֶׁלְגּוֹיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state *ḥallah* with these¹⁵⁹? He said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles¹⁶⁰, cf. *Kilaim* 1:7, Notes 122–140.. But *ḥallah* only applies to Israel, as it is written (*Num.* 15:20): The first of *your* dough,” not of Gentiles.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ Which applies outside the Land by rabbinic decree.
¹⁶⁰ Which is forbidden to Jews even if grown by Gentiles. For kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:6)

וְהֶעָרְלָה הֲלָכָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר כְּהִילְכוֹת הַמְּדִינָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. רִבִּי יָסָא בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אָמַר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה הֲלָכָה לְכָךְ נִיתְּנָה. אָמַר אִילוּלֵא סְלָקִת לְאֶרֶץ דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוֹעַ דָּבָר זֶה דַּיִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“ *‘Orlah* from practice”. Samuel said, practice of the country¹⁶¹ by consensus. The same disagreement is discussed in the Babli, *Qiddušin* 39a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice from Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Assi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice from Moses on Sinai, and you say so¹⁶² outside the Land is of almost biblical status, why can the Mishnah permit all doubtful cases?? He said, when practice was proclaimed, it was given in this way. He said, if I had come to the Land of Israel¹⁶³ never applies outside the Land is quoted only in the Babli. only to hear this it would have been been enough for me.

footnotes:
¹⁶¹ The Jews in Bablylonia continued to practice the prohibition of ‘orlah
¹⁶² If ‘orlah
¹⁶³ R. Assi was a Babylonian. The opinion expressed in Tosephta 8 that ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:7)

וְהַכִּלְאַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. הָא בְכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. הָא בְכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים אָסוּר. אָמַר רַב חוּנָא כַּד נַחְתּוֹן מַעֲרָבַיָּא דְּתַמָּן אָמְרוּנָהּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְקִיַימְנוּהָ. אֶת חֻקּוֹתַיי תִּשְׁמוֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם. שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ. הִקִּישׁ כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים לְכִלְאֵי בְגָדִים וְכִלְאֵי בְהֵמָה. מַה כִּלְאֵי בְגָדִים וְכִלְאֵי בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵין תְּלוּיִין בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹהֲגִין בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אַף כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בָּאָרֶץ נוֹהֲגִין בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And *kilaim* by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers¹⁶⁴ to vineyard *kilaim*. Therefore, *kilaim* of seeds¹⁶⁵ except those growing in a vineyard. are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard *kilaim*. Therefore, *kilaim* of seeds are forbidden¹⁶⁶ 39a, this is the opinion of Samuel but practice follows what here is Samuel’s opinion.. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there¹⁶⁷, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (*Lev*. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws¹⁶⁸ 1, Notes 122,124., your animals you should not mate *kilaim*, your field you shall not sow *kilaim*, …, *ša‘aṭnez*¹⁶⁹ shall not come upon you.” It bracketed *kilaim* of seeds with *kilaim* of clothing and *kilaim* of animals. Since *kilaim* of clothing and *kilaim* of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land¹⁵⁷ 1:9. The parallel discussion is in the Babli, *Qiddušin* 38a/b., so also *kilaim* of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁴ The rabbinic decree.
¹⁶⁵ Any vegetable kilaim
¹⁶⁶ By biblical law. In the Babli, Qiddušin
¹⁶⁷ Galilee.
¹⁶⁸ Cf. Kilaim
¹⁶⁹ Cloth woven from wool and linen.
¹⁵⁷ Mishnah Qiddušin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:8)

חַד בַּר נַשׁ זְרַע חַקְלֵייהּ שְׂעוֹרִין וְלֶפֶת. עָבַר חָנִין גּוֹבִיתָא וְעָקְרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי שְׁמוּאֵל וּקְנָסֵיהּ. דְּתַנֵּי אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכִלְאַיִם. אֲבָל עוֹקְרִין עִמּוֹ בְכִלְאַיִם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמָעֵט בָּעֲבֵירָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A person¹⁷⁰ sowed his field with barley and turnips. Ḥanin from Gobya¹⁷¹ passed by and tore them out. The case came before Samuel who fined him¹⁷², as we have stated¹⁷³ 2:16. The parallel in the Babli, *Avodah Zarah* 63b/64a, while in language closer to the Tosephta than the Yerushalmi text, has “Gentile” in place of “Jew”.: “One does not work with a Jew in *kilaim*, but one does help him to tear out *kilaim*¹⁷⁴ because that helps to diminish sin.”

footnotes:
¹⁷⁰ In Babylonia.
¹⁷¹ A place on the Euphrates.
¹⁷² Ḥanin.
¹⁷³ Tosephta Kilaim
¹⁷⁴ The Tosephta applies to the Land. Even so, it only permits to help the owner, not to tear out without his consent (at least in the absence of a court order). Therefore, Ḥanin was liable even according to R. Joḥanan.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 3:7:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/3:7:9)

תַּנֵּי אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִם הַגּוֹי בְּכִלְאַיִם בֵּין בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין בְּכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים. אֲבָל עֲיָירוֹת הַמּוּבְלָעוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּגוֹן בָּאִינָה וּבָאִימָה וַחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ עוֹשִׂין עִמָּהֶן בְּכִלְאַיִם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכִּלְאַיִם בָּאָרֶץ כָּךְ כִּלְאַיִם בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ. שְׁמוּאֵל פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִם הַגּוֹי בְּכִלְאַיִם בָּאָרֶץ. בֵּין בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין בְּכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים. אֲבָל עֲיָירוֹת הַמּוּבְלָעוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּגוֹן בָּאִינָה וּבָאִימָה וַחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ עוֹשִׂין עִמָּהֶן בְּכִלְאַיִם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכִּלְאַיִם בָּאָרֶץ כָּךְ כִּלְאַיִם בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. הָא כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִם הַגּוֹי בְּכִלְאַיִם בָּאָרֶץ. בֵּין בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם בֵּין בְּכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים. אֲבָל עֲיָירוֹת הַמּוּבְלָעוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּגוֹן בָּאִינָה וּבָאִימָה וַחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ עוֹשִׂין עִמָּהֶן בְּכִלְאַיִם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכִּלְאַיִם בָּאָרֶץ כָּךְ כִּלְאַיִם בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. הָא בְּכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁷⁵ 2:16.: “One does not work with a Gentile in *kilaim*¹⁷⁶ also falls on Gentiles; cf. Note 168., be it vineyard *kilaim* or *kilaim* of seeds. But in towns¹⁷⁷ which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma¹⁷⁸ or*Beth Ana Umma.* Tosephta *Ahilut* 18:4 has Hippos and Ascalon as examples of such pagan enclaves. If the place is not one settled by the returnees from Babylonia (or, in Galilee, was a place of Israelites never exiled), it is formally outside the Land and the Gentile can plant or sow *kilaim* without guilt; cf. *Ševi‘it* 6:1. and similar ones one may work with them in *kilaim*. Just as *kilaim* are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the *baraita*: “One does not work with a Gentile in *kilaim*, be it vineyard *kilaim* or *kilaim* of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in *kilaim*. Just as *kilaim* are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard *kilaim*. Therefore, *kilaim* of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the *baraita*: “One does not work with a Gentile in *kilaim*, be it vineyard *kilaim* or *kilaim* of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in *kilaim*. Just as *kilaim* are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard *kilaim*. Therefore, *kilaim* of seeds are forbidden¹⁷⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁵ Tosephta Kilaim
¹⁷⁶ In the Land of Israel, since there the prohibition of kilaim
¹⁷⁷ Inhabited by Gentiles.
¹⁷⁸ These places have not been convincingly identified. In the Tosephta, one reads either Beth Ana Imma
¹⁷⁹ Reading of the scribe of the Leyden ms. The corrector, followed by the prints, replaced “forbidden” by “permitted.” For the correct choice of the text, cf. Note 166.