## Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit Chapter 8 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:1:1) **משנה:** כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָמְרוּ בַשְּׁבִיעִית כָּל הַמְיוּחָד לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם וְאֵין צוֹרֶךְ לוֹמַר לִבְהֵמָה. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוּ מְיוּחָד לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם עוֹשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם אֲבָל לֹא לִבְהֵמָה. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוּ מְיוּחָד לֹא לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם וְלֹא לְאוֹכֶל בְּהֵמָה חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו אוֹכֶל אָדָם וְאוֹכֶל בְּהֵמָה נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי אָדָם וְחוּמְרֵי בְהֵמָה. חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְעֵצִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְעֵצִים כְּגוֹן הַסִּיאָה וְהָאֵזוֹב וְהַקּוּרְנִית. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing¹ for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop², and thyme. footnotes: ¹ Or any other medical use except medicines that are ingested. ² Cf. Chapter 7, Note 51. These plants grow as weeds. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:1:2) **הלכה:** כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָמְרוּ בַשְּׁבִיעִית כו׳. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם וְאוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה הָיוּ בַפָּרָשָׁה. מַה חָמִית מֵימַר אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא וְאוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָיְתָה שַׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה מִיעוּט. מִיעֵט אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא. וּמִיעֵט אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה כָּל מִדְרָשׁ שֶׁאַתְּ דּוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹבֵר מִדְרָשׁ רִאשׁוֹן אֵין זֶה מִדְרָשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא וְהָיְתָה שַׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה מִיעֵט. לְךָ וּלְעַבְדְּךָ וְלַאֲמָתֶךְ מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט. לְרַבּוֹת אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מָלוּגְמָא. וְרִבָּה אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה. כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה כָּל מִדְרָשׁ שֶׁאַתְּ דּוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹבֵר מִדְרָשׁ רִאשׁוֹן אֵין זֶה מִדְרָשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה כְּשֶׁמִּיעַטְתָּה אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם מִיעַטְתָּה וּכְשֶׁרִיבִּיתָה אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה רִיבִּיתָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph³.) as food, for you (*sing*.), your slave, and your handmaid, your hired hand and your sojourner who are dwelling with you. Also for your (*sing*.) domestic animals, as well as the wild animals in your land, shall all its yield be food.”. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (*Lev*. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid⁵. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (*Lev*. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing⁴.)”, not for the Gentile (Tosephta 5:21) but for all your needs (Mishnah 8:2), “as food”, not for industrial use and not for sacrifices [*Sifra Behar* 1(10)]. “For you (*sing*.), your slave, and your handmaid,” seems to be an addition since this allows rich people to eat Sabbatical produce [*Sifra Behar* 1(10)], even though it is written (Ex. 23:11): “Abandon the yield of the Sabbatical, so it may be eaten by the destitute of your people …” The verse here permits slaveholders, i. e., people of means, to eat Sabbatical produce. According to *Mekhilta Mišpaṭim* 20, still only poor people may eat Sabbatical produce under the obligation of removal. It follows that “you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is stated on condition that there be food for the wild animals, and can be considered a restriction. “Your hired hand and your sojourner who are dwelling with you” are Gentile employees hired for a period of time (“dwelling with you”), not hourly workers. They are exempt from the ban to give Sabbatical fruit to Gentiles. “Also for your domestic animals, as well as the wild animals in your land, shall all its yield be food,” domestic animals can be fed stored food in the stable only as long as they could find it in the fields by themselves. The argument in the Halakhah seems to be the following: Since Sabbatical produce is “for you”, one could think that this (1) only excludes the Gentile, but a Jew may use Sabbatical produce for anything he needs. It is specified “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” which (2) excludes use of Sabbatical produce for any but human use. Wound dressings (as well as emetics) are used for human needs. If there were only one exclusion, I would include medical uses. But since there are two, one has to give an expansive interpretation of the exclusion; the only uses permitted are those needed equally by master and slave, the healthy and the sick. Therefore, medical (non-food) uses are forbidden, washing and heating is permitted. This argument is diametrically opposed to any Babylonian argument which treats two consecutive exclusions as inclusion.. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid⁵. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed⁶. footnotes: ³ Lev 25:6–7 “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you (pl ⁵ R. Bun bar Ḥiyya refutes the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Yose: Since “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is a necessary addition, as explained above, to permit the rich person to eat, it cannot be treated as an exclusion. The explanations are invalid. ⁴ Here we find an essential difference between the exegesis of Babli and Yerushalmi. In the Babli, a double restriction always means an addition, no restriction at all. For the Yerushalmi, any exclusion remains an exclusion; one adds exclusions that otherwise would not be thought of. The verse really contains more exclusions and inclusions: “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you (pl ⁵ R. Bun bar Ḥiyya refutes the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Yose: Since “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is a necessary addition, as explained above, to permit the rich person to eat, it cannot be treated as an exclusion. The explanations are invalid. ⁶ It is enough to have one exclusion mentioned for humans; since there is no similar exclusion for animals, which have the right to Sabbatical produce whether owned by a Jew or not, it is reasonable to have a restrictive tradition for human food but not for animal feed. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:1:3) אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה מַהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צְבוּעִין לָאָדָם. מַה אִם אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבוּעִין לָאָדָם אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לָאָדָם. מִינֵי מָלוּגְמִיּוֹת מַהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צְבָּעִים לָאָדָם. מַה אִם אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם מִינֵי מָלוּגְמִיּוֹת שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם. לֹא צוּרְכָה דְלֹא אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם מַהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּאוֹכְלֵי אָדָם. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם וְדִכְוָותָהּ אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מָלוּגְמָא לִבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֶׂה צְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִפְּנֵי מַה אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם שֶׁכֵּן צִיבְעֵי אָדָם יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְדוּשָׁה נַעֲשָׂה מֵאוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה צְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה וּצְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן קְדוּשָׁה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** May one make dyes⁷ for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question⁸ is: May one make animal dyes⁹ from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness¹⁰. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness¹¹? footnotes: ⁷ Cosmetics. They fill a need equal for all humans. ⁸ The previous argument about wound dressing materials was trivial. ⁹ Probably to paint owner‘s marks on animals. ¹⁰ Since they fill a genuine human need, they fall under all restrictions of the use of Sabbatical produce and cannot be exported or sold to Gentiles. ¹¹ The answer to the question is negative. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:1:4) נִיחָא חוּמְרֵי אָדָם וְחוּמְרֵי בְהֵמָה. שֶׁאָסוּר לְשׁוֹלְקָן. תַּנֵּי הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְאוֹכְלִין וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לוֹקֵחַ לְעֵצִים לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְאוֹכְלִין וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לוֹקֵחַ לְאוֹכְלִין וְחִישֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶן לְעֵצִים לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְעֵצִים וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לְאוֹכְלִין וְחִישֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶן לְעֵצִים. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָשַׁךְ דְּמֵי עֵצִים נָתַן לוֹ. אִם בְּשֶׁמָּשַׁךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת דְּמֵי אוֹכְלִין נָתַן לוֹ. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָשַׁךְ תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר אֵין הַמָּעוֹת קוֹנִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה דְּמֵי אוֹכְלִין נָתַן לוֹ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הַמָּעוֹת קוֹנִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה דְּמֵי עֵצִים נָתַן לוֹ. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְעֵצִים וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לוֹקֵחַ לְאוֹכְלִין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** We understand “one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans and animals” that it is forbidden to boil them to a pulp¹². We have stated: If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as wood¹³ and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood? Where do we hold? If he gave him the money and afterwards took it up, he paid for wood¹⁴ slates that the opinion of the seller counts. Since the seller is not a party to the buyer’s taking possession, his opinion can be determining only if he is the owner at the moment of payment.. If he took it up and afterwards gave him the money, he paid for food. We must hold that he gave him the money and afterwards took it up; this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁵ 7:11, fol. 24d) to R. Joḥanan is that of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the Babli (*Baba Meẓia‘* 46b–47a, *Erubin* 81b) and vice-versa. However, the Talmud of Caesarea (Yerushalmi *Baba Meẓia‘* 4:2, fol. 9d) states that R. Joḥanan asked (and followed) R. Yannai’s opinion in the matter and the latter stated that payment transfers property rights by Torah law and that rabbinic practice was only instituted to cut down on fraud. Since practice almost always follows R. Joḥanan against R. Simeon ben Laqish, Tiberian practice followed the opinion of R. Joḥanan in the text here, Babylonian and Caesarean that of R. Simeon ben Laqish.. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that [transfer of] money does not mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for food. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that [transfer of] money does mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for wood. footnotes: ¹² Here starts the discussion of the third part of the Mishnah about produce used both as food (human or animal) or as wood. ¹³ While wood usually costs less than food, the seller has an interest in selling as wood since then the proceeds are not under Sabbatical restrictions and can be used for any purpose (R. H. Kanievski). ¹⁴ It is agreed that by rabbinic practice, handing over the money does not transfer property rights to the buyer; only taking possession (either actual or symbolic) can do that. However, the baraita ¹⁵ According to one opinion, since לוקח “to take” also means “to buy”, rabbinic practice simply follows the biblical decree. In this case, ownership is vested in the seller until the buyer actually takes possession. The other opinion notes that Abraham bought the field of Makhpela by paying money; it follows that the Torah recognizes payment as effecting transfer of ownership. According to this opinion, rabbinic practice was introduced to cut down on fraudulent transactions, so that the seller could not sell non-existing goods and later claim that they did exist at the time of payment but before delivery were destroyed in a fire.The position ascribed here (and in Yerushalmi Erubin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:1:5) הָיָה זֶה מַעֲמִיד וְזֶה מַעֲמִיד יֵיבָא כְּהָדָא אִם הַמּוֹכֵר תּוֹבֵעַ לְלוֹקֵחַ יַעֲשׂוּ כְדִבְרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ. וְאִם הַלּוֹקֵחַ תּוֹבֵעַ לְמוֹכֵר יַעֲשׂוּ כְדִבְרֵי הַמּוֹכֵר. וָכָא כֵן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If each one keeps to his word, it should be treated as follows¹⁷ 2:9. “One says for 100, the other says for 200. Each went to his own house and then they sued one another. If the seller sues the buyer one follows the buyer, if the buyer sues the seller, one follows the seller.” This cryptic text was explained by Maimonides (*Hilkhot Mekhirah*20:1): “If somebody wants to buy from another person and the seller says I will sell for 200, the buyer says I shall buy only for 100. They separate without a deal and when they come together again, the buyer takes the article without saying anything. If the seller sues the buyer after he handed over the article, the latter has to pay only 100. If the buyer came and took the article, he has to give 200.”: “If the seller sues the buyer one follows the buyer, if the buyer sues the seller, one follows the seller.” And here [one follows] the same [rule]. footnotes: ¹⁷ Tosephta Qiddušin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:2:1) **משנה:** שְׁבִיעִית נִיתְּנָה לַאֲכִילָה וְלִשְׁתִּיָיה וּלְסִיכָה לוֹכַל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לוֹכַל וְלָסוּךְ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לָסוּךְ וְלֹא יִסּוֹךְ יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ אֲבָל סָךְ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. וְכֵן בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. קַל מֵהֶן שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Sabbatical produce is to be used for food, drink, and anointing; to eat everything commonly eaten, to anoint with what commonly is used for anointing. One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil. The same rules apply for heave and second tithe¹⁸, except that the Sabbatical admits the additional leniency that its [oil] may be used for lighting¹⁹. footnotes: ¹⁸ First heave of which the heave of the tithe has been taken is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. ¹⁹ Pure heave of olive oil must be used for a Cohen’s family’s food or for anointing on a pure member of a Cohen’s family. If the oil becomes impure it must be destroyed by burning; impure heave is used as fuel and for that reason is called “oil for burning”. Hence, “heave” in this Mishnah means “pure heave”. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:2:2) **הלכה:** כֵּיצַד לוֹכַל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לוֹכַל אֵין מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ לוֹכַל לֹא פַּת שֶׁעִיפְּשָׁה וְלֹא קְנוּבַת יֶרֶק וְלֹא תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקֵל צוּרָתוֹ. וְכֵן הוּא שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לוֹכַל תַּרְדִּין חַיִין אוֹ לַכּוּס חִיטִּין חַיּוֹת אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. כֵּיצַד לִשְׁתּוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת. אֵין מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת אֱנַיֹגָרוֹן וְלֹא אֵיקְסֻגָורֹין וְלֹא יַיִן וּשְׁמָרִים. הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּשִׁינָּיו לֹא יְהֵא מְגַמֵּא חוֹמֶץ וּפוֹלֵט אֲבָל מְגַמֵּא הוּא וּמַבְלִעַ וּמְטַבֵּל כָּל צוֹרְכּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ גְּרוֹנוֹ לֹא יְעַרְעֶרֶנּוּ בְשֶׁמֶן אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא שֶׁמֶן הַרְבֶּה לְתוֹךְ אֱנַיֹגָורֹין וְגוֹמֵא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** What means “to eat everything commonly eaten”? “One does not oblige anybody to eat mouldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food²⁰.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets²¹ or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him.What means “to drink everything one commonly drinks”²²? “²³ One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce²⁴ - *l*, which fits the spelling better than οἰνόγαρον (“fish in wine sauce”) given by earlier authors., or sour fish sauce²⁵ 9:10’, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much [vinegar] as he wants without second thoughts²⁶. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.” footnotes: ²⁰ Tosephta 6:2, in different order of items. ²¹ Definition of the Gaonim, Arukh, and Maimonides. In modern Hebrew: spinach. ²² This clause is in only a few Mishnah mss. It is in Tosephta 6:1. ²³ Tosephta 6:3, in different order. ²⁴ I. Löw defines as ἐλαιόγαρον, “olive oil with fish sauce” with change of the liquids n ²⁵ Greek ὀξύγαρον “fish sauce with vinegar”. The Tosephta reads סניגרון both here and in Terumot ²⁶ Even if healthy people would not eat their food with as much vinegar. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:2:3) לֹא יִסּוֹךְ יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ אֲבָל סָךְ הוּא אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעָלוּ בוֹ חַטָּטִין סָךְ שֶׁמֶן אֲבָל לֹא יִסּוֹךְ יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ. אֵין מְפַטְּמִין שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית אֲבָל לוֹקֵחַ הוּא שֶׁמֶן עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. רִבִּי אִימִּי סָבַר מֵימַר אֲפִילוּ מִן הֶחָשׁוּד. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חָשׁוּד אִם אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד. הָא דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.”²⁷ “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.”²⁸ One does not use Sabbatical oil as base for perfumes but one may buy sweet oil²⁹ 8:5, Note 109. before the Sabbatical without worry³⁰. Rebbi Ammi thought, even from one who is suspect³¹. Rebbi Assi³² told him, they said that only if one does not know whether he is suspect or not. But if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. footnotes: ²⁷ Quote from the Mishnah. ²⁸ Tosephta 6:4: “If somebody has a headache or a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar since oil is commonly used for rubbing but wine and oil are not.” ²⁹ Perfumed oil, cf. Berakhot ³⁰ It does not need a rabbinic endorsement that it was prepared with non-Sabbatical oil since it is denatured and cannot become edible again. ³¹ A person suspected of illegal trading with Sabbatical produce. ³² Reading יוסה for יוסי for chronological reasons. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:2:4) מַהוּ לְפַטֵּם יַיִן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא קַל מֵהֶן שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר. וְהָתַנֵּי אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** May one spice Sabbatical wine? Let us hear from the following: “The Sabbatical admits the additional leniency that its [oil] may be used for lighting”; that means it is permitted³³ 2:1: “One may not use second tithe oil as base for perfume, one may not buy perfumed oil with second tithe money, but one may spice [second tithe] wine.” Since the rules of the Sabbatical are declared to be more lenient that those of heave and second tithe, what is permitted for second tithe *a fortiori* is permitted for the Sabbatical.. But did we not state³⁴ not otherwise preserved. that it is forbidden? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, since Rebbi Jehudah permits it because it enhances its value³⁵ 11:1: “One does not cook wine of heave because this reduces its volume. Rebbi Jehudah permits it because it improves it.” If one may thicken wine by boiling (while it then loses its alcohol), one also may make spice wine from heave and, *a fortiori*, from Sabbatical wine.. footnotes: ³³ Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni ³⁴ In some baraita ³⁵ Mishnah Terumot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:2:5) קַל מֵהֶן שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר. וּתְרוּמָה לֹא נִתְּנָה לְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר. תְּרוּמָה טְמֵיאָה נִיתְּנָה לְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר. שְׁבִיעִית אֲפִילוּ טְהוֹרָה נִיתְּנָה לְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה עָל מִסְחֵי יְהַב צְלוּחִיתָא לְזוֹסִימִי אוֹרִיָּירָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַעִיל לָהּ לִי לָאֲשׁוּנָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֵית אָסוּר. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אָתָא וְאָמַר לֵיהּ לִמַּדְתָּנוּ וְתַנֵּי כֵן אֵין סָכִין שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית בַּמֶּרְחָץ אֲבָל סָךְ הוּא מִבְּחוּץ וְנִכְנַס. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “The Sabbatical admits the additional leniency that its [oil] may be used for lighting”; that means it is permitted” May heave not be used for lighting? Impure heave may be used for lighting; even pure Sabbatical oil may be used for lighting. Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to the bath. He gave a flask to Zosimos the bath attendant; he said to him: bring that to the inner room³⁸ pp. 185–186. for me. He said to him, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him³⁹, he came and said to him, you yourself taught us, and we stated so: One does not rub in Sabbatical oil in the bath house but he may rub it in outside and enter. footnotes: ³⁸ The heated inner room where everybody is naked and no holy things are permitted; cf. Berakhot ³⁹ Either this is dittography (as assumed by most commentators) or it means “he” (the messenger urgently dispatched by R. Ḥizqiah) “reported to him” (R. Ḥizqiah) that R. Jeremiah came and said that R. Ḥizqiah himself had taught … (פמי משה). This explanation is too ingenious to be correct. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:2:6) וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה לֹא בְבָתֵּי כְּנֵיסִיּוֹת וְלֹא בְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת מִפְּנֵי בִּיזָּיוֹן קֳדָשִׁים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** And oil for burning neither in synagogues nor in houses of study because of degradation of sacred things⁴⁰ 11:10 states explicitly that impure heave is used to illuminate synagogues and houses of study *with* *permission by a Cohen*. The statement must mean that such use represents degradation of holy things if done without explicit permission by a Cohen. The sentence cannot belong to the previous paragraph dealing with anointing since one never may anoint himself in a holy place.. footnotes: ⁴⁰ R. Simson’s text reads: “Impure heave cannot be used for lighting in synagogues and houses of study.” This sentence cannot mean that impure heave can never be used for lighting in synagogues and houses of study since Mishnah Terumot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:3:1) **משנה:** אֵין מוֹכְרִין פֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית לֹא בְמִידָּה וְלֹא בְמִשְׁקָל וְלֹא בְמִנְיָין וְלֹא תְאֵנִים בְּמִנְיָין וְלֹא יֶרֶק בְּמִשְׁקָל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אַף לֹא אֲגוּדוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱגוֹד אוֹתוֹ בַבַּיִת אוֹגְדִין אוֹתוֹ בַשּׁוּק כְּגוֹן הַכְּרֵישִׁין וְנֵץ הֶחָלָב. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Sabbatical produce should not be sold⁴¹ by measure, weight, or count. Figs may not be sold by count nor vegetables by weight⁴². The House of Shammai say, not [vegetables] in bundles. But the House of Hillel say, anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market; for example leeks and milk bud⁴³. footnotes: ⁴¹ Some produce collected in the Sabbatical may be routinely sold since it is collected from the wild, not from cultivated fields; Mishnah 9:1. Other produce may be sold if a surplus has been collected. ⁴² These are examples illustrating the preceding sentence. ⁴³ Chapter 7, Note 16. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:3:2) **הלכה:** לָמָּה כְּדִי שֶׁיִּמָּכְרוּ בְזוֹל. וְיִשָּׁקְלוּ בְלִיטְרָא וְיִמָּכְרוּ בְזוֹל. אִם אָמַר אַתְּ כֵּן אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן בִּקְדוּשָׁה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Why? So it should be sold cheaply. Why could it not be cheaply sold by the pound⁴⁴? If you say so, he will not treat it as holy. footnotes: ⁴⁴ Vegetables usually sold by the ounce, when sold by the pound are wholesale and therefore cheaper. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:3:3) תַּנֵּי פֵּירוֹת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ. לֹא יְהוּ נִמְכָּרִין לֹא בְמִידָּה וְלֹא בְמִשְׁקָל וּבְמִינְיָין אֶלָּא כְפֵירוֹת הָאָרֶץ וְאִם הָיוּ נִיכָּרִין מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין קורדקיא דְּסָלְקִין וּמִזְדַּבְּנִין מִן סוּסִיתָא לְטִיבֵּרִיָּא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated⁴⁶ Produce from outside the Land that entered the Land should not be sold by measure, weight, or count, but *it is* like produce of the Land.” That text does not permit trade of recognizable imports.: “Produce from outside the Land that entered the Land should not be sold by measure, weight, or count, but only like produce of the Land.” It they are recognizable, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example *qwrdqy’*⁴⁷ “walnut”. The language is unclear since produce brought from high-lying Hippos to low-lying Tiberias is brought down, not up, unless one denotes all import into the Holy Land as “bringing up”. brought up from Hippos and sold to Tiberias. footnotes: ⁴⁶ Tosephta 4:18: “Sabbatical ⁴⁷ This fruit has not been identified. One possibility is to derive the word from Persian گردكان gardekān ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:3:4) רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מָמָל זֶה שֶׁהוּא מוֹדֵד בִּכְפִישָׁה וְנִסְתַּיְימָה לוֹ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים. אָסוּר לָמוּד בָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָסִיר מֵימַר עֲבַד אֶצְבָּעָךְ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody measures with a box in which he made a sign two or three times, he may no longer use it for measuring⁴⁸. Rebbi Hoshaiah said, it is forbidden to say, give me your finger’s length. footnotes: ⁴⁸ Even though the box was not created for measuring, when he made signs that indicate certain volumes, even if not those desired now, the box now has the status of a measuring device and is forbidden. Similarly, it is assumed that everybody knows the length of his own index finger; measuring by the length of his finger is like measuring by a measuring rod. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:3:5) טַבָּח כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּתְמַנֶּה לוֹ בְּכוֹר מַהוּ מִקְטְעָתָהּ קוּפָּדִין וּמְזַבֵּנַתָּהּ גַוְא שׁוּקָא. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סָבַר מֵימַר שָׁרֵי מִן הָדָא אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵיאָגֵד בַּבַּיִת אוֹגְדִין אוֹתוֹ בַשּׁוּק. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא כָּל גַּרְמָא הִיא אָמְרָה דְהוּא אָסוּר שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כְעוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְגוּפוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If a butcher who is a Cohen gets hold of a first-born⁴⁹. 15:21–22). However, it may not be treated with disrespect. The details are given in Tractate *Bekhorot*., may he cut it up into roasts and sell it on the market? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say it is permitted, analogous to “anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market⁵⁰”. Rebbi Mana said, that statement itself implies that it is forbidden, that he should not treat its body as merchandise. footnotes: ⁴⁹ A first-born calf, lamb, or kid goat is a sacrifice by its birth and must be given to a Cohen. If it develops a defect that invalidates it as a sacrifice, it is the Cohen’s profane property (Deut ⁵⁰ If the first-born is slaughtered for home use, in the absence of refrigeration it is either cut into large pieces for festive meals or into smaller pieces to be smoked or pickled; neither of them is the kind of cut one does for the market. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:4:1) **משנה:** הָאוֹמֵר לַפּוֹעֵל הֵילָךְ אִיסוּר זֶה וְלַקֵּט לִי יֶרֶק הַיּוֹם שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר. לַקֵּט לִי בּוֹ יֶרֶק הַיּוֹם שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. לָקַח מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם כִּכָּר בְּפוֹנְדִיּוֹן כְּשֶׁאֶלְקוֹט יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה אָבִיא לָךְ מוּתָּר. לָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ סְתָם לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Is somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as⁵¹ 62b) does not accept this fine distinction but declares all limitations imposed on payment for the explicit purpose of working during the Sabbatical as fines. Cf. also Notes 94,95. and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a *dupondius*⁵² [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. footnotes: ⁵¹ A quarter of a drachma. If the laborer is hired for some wages and only afterwards given the task to collect vegetables from Sabbatical growth, his wages are profane and he may spend them in any way he wants. But if the wages are given for the explicit purpose of collecting Sabbatical growth, the wages become Sabbatical and may be used only to buy Sabbatical produce. The Babli (Avodah Zarah ⁵² Half a drachma. It is permitted to exchange Sabbatical produce for other produce. But if food was bought on credit one may not pay with Sabbatical produce or its proceeds. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:4:2) **הלכה:** מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר לַקֵּט לִי מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר לַקֵּט לִי בּוֹ. רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם הִיא. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הַעַל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת הָאֵלֶּה לִירוּשָׁלֵם לְחַלֵּק. אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַעֲלֵם שֶׁנֹּאכְלֵם וְנִשְׁתֵּם בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר לְחַלֵּק מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר הַעֲלֵם שֶׁנֹּאכַל וְנִשְׁתֶּה בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם הוּא. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן שׁוֹאֵל אָדָם מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כַדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵנִי. מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר הַלְוֵינִי מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר הַשְׁאִילֵינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם הִיא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** What⁵³ 3:1 (fol. 54a), *Šabbat* 1:6 (fol. 3c), *Avodah Zarah* 2:9 (fol. 41d). In the Babli (*Avodah Zarah* 62a/b), all prohibitions are explained as fines. is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation⁵⁴. There, we have stated⁵⁵ 3:1. It is forbidden to pay one’s debt with Second Tithe. Therefore one has to formulate a transportation contract in such a way as to give to the transporter a claim to part of the food before the start of the contract.: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated⁵⁶. In the Babli (*Šabbat* 148a) this is not one of the obscure practices; the mention of monetary values is forbidden as rabbinic ordinance to avoid any temptation to write things down. It seems that the Babli considers even monetary transactions between neighbors as friendly exchanges, permitted under biblical law.}: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. footnotes: ⁵³ This paragraph and the next appear (with minor changes in the order of subjects) in Ma‘aser Šeni ⁵⁴ Compare Arabic ע̇מע̇ם, Hebrew גמגם “to mutter, to stutter”. While the reason was explained in Note 51, the difference in practice is purely semantic and one should not permit an action whose intent is to circumvent the law. The answer is that as a practical necessity, the rabbis found a way to legitimize popular behavior by obscuring the strict interpretation of the law. ⁵⁵ Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni ⁵⁶ Mishnah Šabbat 23:1. It is forbidden to make commercial transactions on the Sabbath. Exchanges between neighbors are permitted but any mention of monetary values is forbidden. {There is no Yerushalmi extant for the last four chapters of Šabbat ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:4:3) פִּיתָּן רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן עוֹד הִיא מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קַשְׁיָיתָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מַהוּ מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִמְעוּם הוּא כָּךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיָה בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁתְּהֵא פַּת גּוֹי מוּתֶּרֶת וְעִימְעַמּוּ עָלֵיהָ וְאָסְרוּהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא וְיֵשּׁ עִימְעוּם לְאִיסּוּר. וּפַת לֹא כְתַבְשִׁילֵי גוֹיִם הִיא. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁתַּבְשִׁילֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן מְצוּיִין שָׁם בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁיְּהוּ תַבְשִׁילֵי גּוֹיִם מוּתָּרִין וְעִימְעַמּוּ עָלֵיהֶן וְאָסְרוּם. אֶלָּא כֵן הָיָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיָה בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא פַּת גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרָה וְעִימְעַמּוּ עָלֵיהָ וְהִתִּירוּהָ מִפְּנֵי חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא כְדִבְרֵי מִי שֶׁהוּא מַתִּיר וּבִלְבַד מִן הַפְּלָטֵר. וְלָא עָבְדִין כֵּן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Their⁵⁷1:6, fol. 3c) as one of the “eighteen decrees” enacted at the start of the first revolt against the Romans to separate Jews from Gentiles; according to the Babli (*Avodah Zarah* 35b) it is an older rabbinic prohibition enacted to cut down on intermarriage. In biblical law, food prepared by Gentiles according to Jewish dietary laws is permitted (*Deut*. 2:6,28). bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Why should it belong to the practices of obfuscation? I say that at a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted, but they⁵⁹ 2:9), Rebbi and his court permitted Gentile bread. obfuscated the matter and forbade it. Rebbi Mana said: Does there exist obfuscation for prohibition⁵⁸? Is bread not like Gentile cooking? So we say: At a place where no Jewish cooking is to be found it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it⁶⁰.*cit*.), in this case Gentile cooking is certainly forbidden because of the dangers of intermarriage.. But so it was: At a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden, but they obfuscated the matter and permitted it as a necessity of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [hold] with the one who permits, but only from a store⁶¹.*cit*.) agrees that this was the original meaning of Rebbi’s ruling, but the people interpreted it to permit any Gentile bread, as implied here by the next sentence.. But one does not follow this⁶². footnotes: ⁵⁷ Gentile bread. Anything cooked or baked by a Gentile is forbidden, according to the Yerushalmi (Šabbat ⁵⁹ According to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah ⁵⁸ There do exist prohibitions whose origin is most unclear, such as the prohibition of Gentile cheese made with vegetable rennet. But the technical term “obfuscation” is only used in connection with practices the rabbis had to condone and permit. ⁶⁰ According to the Babli (loc ⁶¹ The Babli (loc ⁶² The Babli accepts the original statement of the Yerushalmi that Gentile bread is permitted only in the absence of a store selling bread baked by Jews. {“Baked by Jews”in the Babli means that the oven was lit by a Jew; all other work may be done by Gentiles.} A statement attributed to R. Joḥanan in the Babli even forbids all Gentile bread in town and allows it only for consumption in the fields. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:4:4) רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְּמַרְאֶה לוֹ אֶת הַקּוֹלֵחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּנוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר רַגְלוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לֹא הֶרְאָה לוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁהֶרְאָה לוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל [רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן] לָקִישׁ. דְּתַנֵּי הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְהָבִיא יַיִן לְחוֹלֶה אוֹ תַפּוּחַ לְחוֹלֶה אִם הֵבִיא חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ יַיִן לְחוֹלֶה מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תַּפּוּחַ לְחוֹלֶה מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיא בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ שְׂכַר רַגְלָיו הוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ. מַה עֲבִד לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פָּתַר לָהּ בְּמַרְאֶה לוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּתַנֵּי לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הָא לָךְ דֵּינָר זֶה וַהֲבֵא לִי לֶקֶט הַיּוֹם. הֲבֵא לִי פֵּיאָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ בְּלֶקֶט שֶׁתָּבִיא לִי הַיּוֹם בְּפֵיאָה שֶׁתָּבִיא לִי הַיּוֹם. וְכֵן אַתְּ מוֹצֵא בְּבֶן לֵוִי. וַהֲרֵי לֹא הֶרְאָה לוֹ וְאַתְּ אָמַר כְּמִי שֶׁהֶרְאָה לוֹ. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַל הֵיקִלוּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית שֶׁהִיא מִדְּרַבָּנָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump⁶³; then he pays him only the wages of his feet⁶⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated⁶⁵ is also quoted *Avodah Zarah* 5:1 (fol. 44c). In the first case, it is a contract for delivery, in the second case a contract for work. Since the expression used by R. Simeon ben Laqish, “wages of his feet”, are used in the *baraita* regarding an unrestricted contract for work, the restrictive use of R. Simeon ben Laqish seems to be unjustified.: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor⁶⁶ become the unrestricted property of the poor, the transaction is legitimate if the poor man is paid for delivery of the produce; it is illegitimate if the poor man is hired to collect as agent for the rich person. The same rules apply for a Levite and First Tithe., here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me *peah* today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for *peah* you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical⁶⁷. footnotes: ⁶³ This means, if he indicates the places where the worker should go and collect. Most commentators delete the word but it is confirmed by both mss. ⁶⁴ Since the contract was only for the transport, the wages are not Sabbatical. ⁶⁵ This baraita ⁶⁶ The rich person says to the poor one that he is willing to pay for the gleanings the poor will collect. Since gleanings and peah ⁶⁷ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 7. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:4:5) לָקַח מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם כִּכָּר בְּפוֹנְדִיּוֹן כְּשֶׁאֶלְקוֹט יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה אָבִיא לָךְ מוּתָּר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיֵה אוֹסְרִין. מַה נָן קַיָימִין כְּהַהוּא דְאָמַר הַב לִי וּבָרִי לִי אֲנָא יְהַב לָךְ רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹסְרִין שֶׁאֵין יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה מְצוּיִין. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיַּרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה מְצוּיִין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a *dupondius*[and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted.⁶⁸” It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it⁶⁹ 3:1 (fol. 54a): If the baker says, here it is, bring me later, this is forbidden according to everybody (since one may not pay a debt with Sabbatical produce). If the buyer says, give it to me and I shall give to you (what I already have collected), that is permitted according to everybody. But if the buyer says, give it to me and I know where to find, that is the disagreement between Rebbis Judah and Neḥemiah and the Sages, as described here..” What are we talking about? About one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me [where to find it], I shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant. footnotes: ⁶⁸ Quote from the Mishnah. ⁶⁹ Tosephta 6:21. The discussion here is fragmentary; the full text is in Ma‘aser Šeni ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:5:1) **משנה:** אֵין נוֹתְנִין לֹא לְבַיָיר וְלֹא לְבַלָּן וְלֹא לְסַפָּר וְלֹא לְסַפָּן. אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְבַיָיר לִשְׁתּוֹת. וּלְכוּלָּן הוּא נוֹתֵן מַתְּנוֹת חִינָּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One gives neither to the water drawer, nor to the bath attendant, nor to the barber, nor to the ship owner⁷⁰, but one may give to drink to the water drawer. And to all of these one may give free gifts. footnotes: ⁷⁰ As explained in Mishnah 2, Sabbatical produce has to be consumed and may not be given in payment. But it may be given to drink (or to eat). It may be given for goodwill (according to the House of Hillel in Mishnah 4:2). ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:5:2) **הלכה:** תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אַף לֹא לַמְּבַיַיר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר אֵין לוֹקְחִין הִימֶּינּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** It was stated⁷¹ it was stated that R. Yose forbids to give drinks made from Sabbatical fruits to the water drawer. Since this seems to contradict Mishnah 2, one has to investigate what this statement means.: “Rebbi Yose says, not even to the water drawer.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There, he says⁷²,*one may use Sabbatical produce to buy water and salt*.”: “One does not use them to buy water and salt,” and here he says so⁷³? footnotes: ⁷¹ In some baraita ⁷² Tosephta 6:25: “One may not use Sabbatical produce to buy water and salt; Rebbi Yose says ⁷³ In the Tosephta, he permits using proceeds of Sabbatical fruits to buy water and salt which in themselves are not food, and here he seems to forbid using even drinks made from Sabbatical fruits as drinks! ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:5:3) אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה פְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁתַּשְׁמִשׁוֹ אֲבָל בִּשְׁתִיָיה אוּף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֵה הֲוֵי. מָאן תַּנָּא אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְבַיָיר לִשְׁתּוֹת רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כָאן לְאָדָם וְכָאן לִבְהֵמָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yose⁷⁴ said, they disagree for general usage⁷⁵, but for drinking even Rebbi Yose would agree. Who is the Tanna of “but one may give to drink to the water drawer”? Rebbi Yose! Rebbi Yose⁷⁴ said, it is the opinion of everybody; one statement refers to humans, the other to animals⁷⁶ fragment quoted at the start refers to giving Sabbatical drinks to animals. This use would not be sanctioned by Mishnah 2.. footnotes: ⁷⁴ The Amora. ⁷⁵ For anything but nourishment. ⁷⁴ The Amora. ⁷⁶ The baraita ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:5:4) תַּנֵּי מַעֲיָין שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר הֵן וָאֲחֵרִים קוֹדְמִין הֵן לָאֲחֶרִים. אֲחֵרִים וּבְהֶמְתָּן אֲחֵרִים קוֹדְמִין לִבְהֶמְתָּן. כְּבִיסָתָן וְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים כְּבִיסָתָן קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מָאן תַּנָּא כְּבִיסָה חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנֵי אֵין נוֹתְנִין מֵהֶן לֹא לְמִשְׁרָה וְלֹא לִכְבִיסָה. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בִּכְבִיסָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרְבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר אֵין רְחִיצָה חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר הַכְּבִיסָה חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אָדָם מְגַלְגֵּל בִּרְחִיצָה וְאֵין אָדָם מְגַלְגֵּל בִּכְבִיסָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated⁷⁷ 80b, a text close to the one given here, a different text Tosephta *Baba MeẓiHammayîm ‘a* 11:33–36. In the Tosephta, R. Yose declares that the animals of the town have precedence over the lives of outsiders. Therefore, the argument given here does not apply to R. Yose’s opinion in the Tosephta; the latter represents neither of the two Talmudim. A text close to the paragraph given here is in *Nedarim* 11:1 (fol. 42c). The paragraph is inserted here because it deals with seemingly contradictory opinions of the Tanna R. Yose.: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence. Their washing⁷⁸ and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who saidthat washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.⁷⁹40a, *Moëd Qaṭan* 101b, where however steeping and washing clothes are treated equally.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There⁸⁰ 11:1. Rebbi Yose does not consider a vow to stop washing himself a vow of deprivation. he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life. Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes⁸¹. footnotes: ⁷⁷ Babli Nedarim ⁷⁸ Washing their clothes, not themselves. ⁷⁹ A similar text is in Babli Sukkah ⁸⁰ Mishnah Nedarim ⁸¹ In the Babli, Samuel states that sickness caused by a dirty body can be healed but dirty clothing induces insanity which is incurable. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:5:5) יְהוּדָה אִישׁ חוּצִי עֲבַד טְמִיר בִּמְעָרְתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין בְּעֵי לְמֵיקָם עַל הָדֵין טַעֲמָא מְנַיִין שְׁחַיֵּי הָעִיר הַזּאת קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי עִיר אֲחֶרֶת. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּא אָמַר לֵיהּ הֵן הֲוֵיתָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ עַבְדִּת טְמִיר בִּמְעָרְתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין בְּעִי לְמֵיקָם עַל הָדֵין טַעֲמָא מְנַיִין שְׁחַיֵּי הָעִיר הָזֹּאת קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי עִיר אֲחֶרֶת. קָרָא לְרִבִּי אֱבִירוֹדֵימָס בְּרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַגִּיב הָהֵן טַעֲמָא מְנַיִין שְׁחַיֵּי הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי עִיר אֲחֶרֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ תִּהְיֶינָּה הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה תִּחְיֶינָּה עִיר וָעִיר וְאַחַר כָּךְ וּמִגְרְשֶׁיהָ סְבִיבוֹתֶיהָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מָאן גָּרַם לָךְ דְּלֹא פָלְתָהּ עִם חֲבֵירֶיךָ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Jehudah from Ḥuṣī⁸² hid himself in a cave for three days because he wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He came to Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta who asked him, where have you been? He said, I was hiding in a cave for three days because I wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He called his son Rebbi Vardimos and said to him, answer, what is the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He said to him (*Num*. 35:15): “These [six] cities shall be”, each town shall live⁸³, and only afterwards their surroundings around them⁸⁴. 35:2,3. In the Babli, *Nedarim* 81a, verse 3 “their surroundings [of the Levitic town] shall be for its animals and its life-necessities” is explained (following R. Yose) “for its animals and clothes-washing.”. He [R. Yose] said to him [Jehudah from Ḥuṣi], what did cause you [this embarassment]? That you did not search with your companions! footnotes: ⁸² An otherwise unknown personage from tannaïtic times. Neither the tradition of his name nor that of his place are certain. ⁸³ It seems that this is based on identifying ה and ח which not only where pronounced identically but also written almost identically, with the left leg of ה touching the roof slightly towards the middle, the left leg of ח being at the extreme left end and going up slightly over the roof. Since היה indicates permanency, one might also explain the argument that the first duty of the city government is to insure the continued survival of its inhabitants. ⁸⁴ The surroundings are mentioned in slightly different formulations Num ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:6:1) **משנה:** תְּאֵינִים שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית אֵין קוֹצִין אוֹתָן בְּמוּקְצֶה אֲבָל קוֹצֶה הוּא בַּחַרְבָּה. וְאֵין דּוֹרְכִין עֲנָבִים בַּגַּת אֲבָל דּוֹרֵךְ הוּא בַּעֲרִיבָה. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין זֵיתִים בַּבַּד וּבְקוֹטְבִּי אֲבָל כּוֹתֵשׁ וּמַכְנִיס לְבוֹדִידָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף טוֹחֵן הוּא בְּבֵית הַבַּד וּמַכְנִיס לְבוֹדִידָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One does not cut Sabbatical figs with the fig-knife but he may cut with a dagger⁸⁵. One does not tread grapes in the wine press but he may tread in a trough. One does not work olives in the oil press and with a roller⁸⁶ but he pounds them and puts them into a hand press. Rebbi Simeon says, one may grind them in the oil press house and put them into the hand press. footnotes: ⁸⁵ The reason for the Mishnah, as explained in the Halakhah, is that one may not process the harvest in a professional way. ⁸⁶ Explanation of Arukh and Gaonim. (Arukh has a second explanation: “some say” it means a basket. Maimonides explains as “small oil press”, בודידה as “very small oil press”.) ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:6:2) **הלכה:** כְּתִיב וְאֶת סְפִיחַ קְצִירְךָ לֹא תִקְצוֹר. הָא קְצִירָה כְנֶגֶד הַקּוֹצְרִים לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לִסְפִיחֵי אִיסּוּר תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לִסְפִיחֵי הֵיתֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא לְכָךְ נִצְרְכָה בְּשֶׁעָלוּ מֵאֵילֵיהֶן שֶׁמָּא לֹא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְעָלוּ מֵאֵילֵיהֶן יְהוּ מוּתָּרִין לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר אָסוּר. אֶת סְפִיחַ קְצִירְךָ לֹא תִקְצוֹר וְאֶת עִינְּבֵי נְזִירֶיךָ לֹא תִבְצוֹר. מִן הַשָּׁמוּר בָּאָרֶץ אֵין אַתְּ בּוֹצֵר בּוֹצֵר אַתְּ מִן הַמּוּבְקָר. לֹא תִבְצוֹר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַבּוֹצְרִין מִיכָּן אָמְרוּ תְּאֵנִים שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית אֵין קוֹצִין אוֹתָן בְּמוּקְצֶה אֲבָל קוֹצֶה הוּא בַּחַרְבָּה. אֵין דּוֹרְכִין עֲנָבִים בַּגַּת אֲבָל הוּא דּוֹרֵךְ בַּעֲרִיבָה. אֵין עוֹשִׂין זֵתִים בַּבַּד וּבְקוֹטְבִי וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּקוֹטְבִּי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** It is written⁸⁷ 1(3), in slightly different wording. (*Lev*. 25:5) “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap.” That means, not in the way of reapers⁸⁸. Rebbi La said, if it cannot refer to forbidden aftergrowth⁸⁹, take it to refer to permitted aftergrowth. Rebbi Mana said, it is needed for itself when it grew by itself⁹⁰. You should not say that since it grew by itself it is permitted; therefore it was necessary to say that it is forbidden. “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap and the grapes of your wild growth you should not process into wine.⁹¹” You may not harvest grapes from what is being watched over on the land, but you may gather grapes from what is abandoned. “You should not process into wine,” not in the way of vintners. From here, they said that “one does not cut Sabbatical figs with the fig-knife but he may cut with a dagger. One does not tread grapes in the wine press but he may tread in a trough. One does not work olives in the oil press and with a roller.” Our teachers permitted to use a roller⁹². footnotes: ⁸⁷ Sifra Behar Pereq ⁸⁸ As Maimonides explains, since Sabbatical produce is for everybody to eat, the verse cannot mean that one may not reap grain or gather grapes at all. Therefore, it must mean that professional harvesting in all its aspects is forbidden. ⁸⁹ Since aftergrowth is forbidden only by rabbinic ordinance, the verse cannot refer to forbidden aftergrowth. ⁹⁰ One should not say that the prohibition of professional harvesting applies only to aftergrowth on a field that was planted for the same crop the previous year. If the plants appear at other places, which really is spontaneous growth, they still fall under the same rule. ⁹¹ Not only collecting the grapes but the entire processing of the harvest, ending with the production of wine. ⁹² Since this is used only for small quantities of grapes in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle. The Tosephta (6:27) spells out that “our teachers” are Rabban Gamliel (III, the son of Rebbi) and his academy. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:6:3) רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוֹרֵי לְאִילֵּין דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי לִטְחוֹן בְּרֵיחַיִם כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְלַעֲשׂוֹת בְּקוֹטְבִּי כְּרַבָּנָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוֹרֵי לְאִילֵּין דְּבֵּית רִבִּי יַנַּאי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכַר בַּדֵּיהֶן יַיִן אֶלָּא מָעוֹת כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וּכְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הוֹרֵי לוֹן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai to grind in a mill following Rebbi Simeon, and to work with a roller, following the rabbis. Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai not to take the rent of their oil presses in wine⁹³ but in money; he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. footnotes: ⁹³ Most commentators emend “in wine” to “in olive oil” since wine is not made in an oil press. However, the manuscript evidence forbids the emendation. What R. Joḥanan stated was that for processing Sabbatical produce, no Sabbatical produce at all should be accepted as payment; cf. Note 69. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:6:4) תַּנֵּי הַחַמָּרִין וְהַכַּתָּפִין וְכָל הָעוֹשׂוֹת שְׁבִיעִית שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְפֵירוֹת הֵיתֵר הִיא מַתְנִיתִין. מַהוּ שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁיְּהוּ נוֹטְלִין מִמַּה שֶׁיְּהוּ עוֹשִׂין שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית. וִיהֵא דְּהוֹרֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְאִילֵּין דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכַר בַּדֵּיהֶן שֶׁמֶן אֶלָּא מָעוֹת. כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וּכְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הוֹרֵי לוֹן. רִבִּי הִילָא בִּמְכַתְּפֵי פֵּירוֹת עֲבֵירָה הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וּמָה הִיא שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית. כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יַיִן נֶסֶךְ קְנָס קְנָסוּהוּ וָכָא קְנָס קְנָסוּהוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated⁹⁴ 62a) mentions only donkey drivers.: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this *baraita* deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah⁹⁵ is taken as the position of the rabbis opposing Rebbis Jehudah and Neḥemiah (Note 69). This position is rejected in the Babli (*loc*.*cit*.) since the text does not include “all those working with produce”. It is held that poorly paid workers may be paid in kind following the rules of Mishnah 5 but not highly paid donkey drivers, following Rebbi Abbahu.. Rebbi Hila⁹⁶: the *baraita* deals with those who carry forbidden produce⁹⁷. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations⁹⁸ 5:1 which states that the wages of a Jewish worker earned by a contract which specifies work for wine used, or to be used, for idolatrous libations is forbidden for all usufruct. R. Abbahu (*Avodah Zarah* Halakhah 5:1) notes that no principle of law requires that the wages be forbidden; it is a rabbinic ordinance imposed to avoid situations in which pagan wine might be sold to Jews, and the same situation applies here.; here also, they fined him. footnotes: ⁹⁴ Tosephta 6:26; there camel drivers are mentioned instead of “all those working”. The quote in the Babli (Avodah Zarah ⁹⁵ The baraita ⁹⁶ He is R. La. ⁹⁷ Produce from guarded fields or harvested in a professional way. ⁹⁸ This refers to Mishnah Avodah Zarah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:7:1) **משנה:** אֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין יֶרֶק שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁלֹּא יְבִיאֶנּוּ לִידֵי פְּסוּל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִתְפָּשׁ בַּשְׁבִיעִית וְהַפֶּירִי לְעַצְמוֹ אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One may not cook Sabbatical vegetables in heave oil because it should not be made unusable⁹⁹. Rebbi Simeon permits it. Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden¹⁰⁰ 3(3) because the verse equates the rules of the Jubilee year with those of the Sabbatical: “(*Lev*. 25:12) ‘Because a Jubilee it is, holy it should be for you’; just as holy things absorb their redemption money {any sanctified object other than a valid sacrifice can be redeemed and the sanctity transferred to the money), also the Sabbatical produce absorbs its money. Then just as holy things become profane, Sabbatical produce should become profane. But the verse says *it is* {in a permanent state}, it remains in its holiness.” The details of the transfer to the last redeemed property are given in the Halakhah. The argument of *Sifra* is reproduced in Babli *Sukkah* 40b, *Qiddušin* 58a; there the permanent state is implied by ‘Because a Jubilee it is, holy *it should be* for you’ {in the Babli, scriptural use of the verb היה is always taken to imply permanence.}. footnotes: ⁹⁹ Sabbatical produce has a status of holiness. However, in contrast to sacrifices, Sabbatical produce cannot be redeemed and does not have to be kept in purity. The rabbis note that Sabbatical produce cooked in heave oil will become inedible if impure and this should not happen. The sentence “because it should not be made unusable” means “one should not use it in a way by which it might become unusable.” ¹⁰⁰ The rules of this Mishnah are deduced in Sifra Behar Pereq ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:7:2) **הלכה:** תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן וּבְכוּלָּן הַכֹּהֲנִים רַשַּׁאִין לְשַׁנּוֹת בַּאֲכִילָתָן וּלְאוֹכְלָן צְלוּיִין שְׁלוּקִים וּמְבוּשָׁלִים וְלִיתֵּן לְתוֹכָן תַּבְלֵי חוּלִין וְתַבְלֵי תְרוּמָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לֹא יִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה לִידֵי פְסוּל. אַתְיָיא דִיחִידָיָיא דְהָכָא כִּסְתָמָא דְתַמָּן (וְדִיחִידָאָה דְהָכָא כִּסְתָמָא דְתַמָּן). אֶלָּא דִּסְתָמָא דְהָכָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּתַמָּן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה אֶשְׁתָּאִלִית לְאִילֵּין דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרִין נְהִיגִין הֲוֵינָן מְבַשְּׁלִין עַל יַד עַל יַד וְאוֹכְלִין. מַיי כְדוֹן. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּתַמָּן הִיא רַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** There¹⁰¹ 10:7, speaking of the way Cohanim ate sacrificial meat in the Temple., we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time,¹⁰² or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable¹⁰³.” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there¹⁰⁴, speaking of the different kinds of preparation of meat, is in fact anonymous. But the part about spices, which we are interested in, is R. Simeon’s.? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon¹⁰⁵ 3:1, fol. 42a). In the Babli (*Erubin* 46b), the question of precedence between Rebbis Simeon and Meïr is declared to be undecidable. {Cf. also *Demay*, Chapter 5, Note 120, *Terumot* Chapter 3, Note 25.}. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat¹⁰⁶. How is that¹⁰⁷? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here. footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Mishnah Zebaḥim ¹⁰² Since sacrifices had to be eaten in one or at most two days, one could have thought that a way of cooking usually reserved for vegetable preserves was forbidden. ¹⁰³ Since the Cohanim might not be able to consume all sacrificial meat in time, the remainder would have to be burned, including the spices from heave. ¹⁰⁴ The first clause of Mishnah Zebaḥim ¹⁰⁵ Therefore, R. Simeon’s opinion should count as an anonymous one. This is a decision of R. Joḥanan (Terumot ¹⁰⁶ R. Meïr might agree with the practice to use heave spices in small dishes that will be eaten immediately since then the danger to the heave is minimized. The precaution to cook only small portions would be unnecessary for R. Simeon. This proves that R. Yannai did not follow R. Simeon and his practical decision should be followed. ¹⁰⁷ How could this be justified? ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:7:3) הָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִתְפָּשׂ בַּשְׁבִיעִית וְהַפֶּירִי עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר הָא כֵּיצַד לָקַח בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית בָּשָׂר אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ מִתְבָעֲרִין בַּשְׁבִיעִית. לָקַח בְּבָשָׂר דָּגִים יָצָא בָשָׂר נִתְפְּשׂוּ דָגִים. לָקַח בְּדָגִים שֶׁמֶן יָצְאוּ דָגִים וְנִכְנָס שֶׁמֶן הָאַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִתְפָּשׁ בַּשְׁבִיעִית וְהַפֶּירִי עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If¹⁰⁸ 3(3), Babli *Sukkah* 40b. he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden. footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Sifra Behar Pereq ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:7:4) בָּעֵי מִינֵיהּ מֵרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שְׁבִיעִית מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלָמָּה לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר אֵין שְׁבִיעִית יוֹצֵא דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ מְכִירָה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לְחַלְלָן עַל עִיסָּתוֹ מְחַלְלוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סֶלַע מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח לוֹ חָלוּק הוֹלֵךְ אֶצֶל הַחֶנְוָונִי הַרָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ וְאוֹמֵר תֵּן לִי בְזוֹ פֵּירוֹת וְהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֲרֵי פֵּירוֹת הָאֵילּוּ נְתוּנִים לָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה וְהַחֶנְוָונִי אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֲרֵי סֶלַע זוֹ נְתוּנָה לָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֵחַ לוֹ חָלוּק. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption¹⁰⁹ 40b–41a, where it is asserted that R. Joḥanan also permits redemption only for substitutions, not for Sabbatical produce itself. This can be read also into the Yerushalmi since the latter deals only with Sabbatical money, not with Sabbatical produce.? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A *baraita* supports one, a *baraita* supports the other. A *baraita* supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A *baraita*¹¹⁰ 41a, a version close to the one quoted here. supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.” footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Since the Mishnah and the Tosephta speak only about substitution, the question remains whether Sabbatical produce can be redeemed the way Temple property (other than valid sacrifices) can be, by offering money or money’s worth with the explicit intent of transferring sanctity.A lengthy discussion of this topic is in Babli Sukkah ¹¹⁰ Tosephta 6:25, in a shortened version. Babli Sukkah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:7:5) רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא וִיהַב פְּרִיטוֹי. עַד כְּדוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּהוּא מִתְיְיהֵמָן הָא שְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם דְּלָא מִתְיְיהֵמָנוּן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא מְחַוִּי לָהּ כְּהָדָא וּנְסִיב כְּהָדָא. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה הֲוָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַב לִי קוֹמוֹי מִן גַּוא דּוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַב לִי קֹמֹיי כְּמָאן דְּלָא יְהִב לֵיהּ מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money¹¹¹. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy¹¹²? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you¹¹³”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money. footnotes: ¹¹¹ Since one may not pay one’s debts with Sabbatical money, the money paid afterwards was in liquidation of a debt and cannot be Sabbaticaleven if the wine was Sabbatical. Then the question of redemption does not even arise. ¹¹² If the seller wants the money before he hands over the merchandise. The answer is that even the untrustworthy buyer will get credit if he shows that he has money in his hand to cover the debt incurred. Then he can take up the buy and acquire it by lifting it up, incur a debt by this act, and then hand over the money to liquidate the debt, not to acquire the produce. ¹¹³ This is essentially the same device as that used by R. Jacob bar Aḥa: The buyer puts up the money required but does not hand it over. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:1) **משנה:** אֵין לוֹקְחִין עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. אֵין מְבִיאִין קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְאִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. אֵין סָכִין כֵּלִים בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית וְאִם סָךְ יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. עוֹר שֶׁסָּכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִדָּלֵק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הָיָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר עוֹר שֶׁסָּכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית יִדָּלֵק. אָמַר לָהֶן שְׁתוּקוּ לֹא אוֹמַר לָכֶם מַה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר בּוֹ. וְעוֹד אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו אוֹמֵר הָיָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר הָאוֹכֵל פַּת כּוּתִי כְאוֹכֵל בַּשַׂר חֲזִיר. אָמַר לָהֶן שְׁתוּקוּ לֹא אוֹמַר לָכֶם מַה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר בּוֹ. מֶרְחָץ שֶׁהוּסְּקָה בְתֶבֶן וּבְקַשׁ שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית מוּתָּר לִרְחוֹץ בָּהּ. אִם מִתְחַשֵּׁב הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִרְחוֹץ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money¹¹⁴. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth¹¹⁵. One does not bring nests¹¹⁶. 12:8, 15:14, 15:29. There are other situations when “nests” are required (*Lev*. 5:7, 14:22) but they are infrequent. for men with gonorrhea, women with discharges, or women who had given birth from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. One does not rub vessels with Sabbatical oil¹¹⁷. If he did, he has to eat its worth. Leather oiled with Sabbatical oil, Rebbi Eliezer said, should be burned, but the Sages say, one has to eat its worth. They said before Rebbi Aqiba: Rebbi Eliezer used to say that leather oiled with Sabbatical oil should be burned. He said to them: be silent! I shall not tell you what Rebbi Eliezer said about this. They also said before him: Rebbi Eliezer used to say that one who eats Samaritan bread is like one who eats pork. He said to them: be silent! I shall not tell you what Rebbi Eliezer said about this. One may bathe in a bathhouse heated with Sabbatical straw and chaff. If somebody considers himself an important person, he should not bathe there¹²⁸. footnotes: ¹¹⁴ One may only buy food or things necessary to prepare food. ¹¹⁵ He has to set aside an amount equal to the sum spent on illegitimate expenses and use it for food items. ¹¹⁶ “Nest” is a technical term for a couple of pigeons or turtle doves, prescribed as sacrifice for these cases in Lev ¹¹⁷ This is industrial use even if it is necessary to turn the vessel into a finished product ready to be used in cooking or baking. ¹²⁸ Materials unfit as food may be burned without hesitation. But one is afraid that for an important person, the bath attendants will burn fragrant wood or even edibles which cannot legally be burned. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:2) **הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאָסוּר לִיקַּח לוֹ אִשָּׁה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. דִּלָכֵן מַה בֵּין הַקּוֹנֶה אִשָּׁה מַה בֵּין הַקּוֹנֶה שִׁפְחָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. For if it is not so, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl¹¹⁸, Chapter 6, Note 46, *Demay* Chapter 1, Note 185). Since the biblical term אם יקח איש אשה “if a man takes a wife” means in the rabbinic vocabulary “if a man acquires a wife”, it is inferred (Mishnah *Qiddušin* Chapter 1) that the rules of acquiring in general can be derived from the rules of acquiring a wife. The fact that the money (or money’s worth) is given to the bride in the case of marriage but to a third party, the seller, in the case of acquisition of slaves and real estate, does not make any difference here since the transfer of bride money is only valid if it would be valid in any other act of acquisition.? footnotes: ¹¹⁸ A wife must first be acquired by a monetary gift before she can be married to the groom (cf. Peah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:3) תַּנֵּי שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית אֵין חוֹסְמִין בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִים וְלֹא סָכִין בּוֹ מִנְעָלִים וְסַנְדָּלִים וְלֹא יִסּוֹךְ אָדָם אֶת רַגְלוֹ וְהוּא בְתוֹךְ מִנְעָלוֹ וְהוּא בְתוֹךְ סַנְדָּלוֹ. אֲבָל סָךְ הוּא אֶת רַגְלוֹ וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ מִנְעָלוֹ וּלְתוֹךְ סַנְדָּלוֹ. סָךְ שֶׁמֶן וּמִתְעַגֵּל עַל גַּבֵּי קַטַּבֹּלֵיָא וְאֵינוּ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. לֹא יִתְּנֶנָּהּ לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי טַבֻּלָה שֶׁל שַׁיִישׁ לְהִתְעַגֵּל בָּהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַתִּיר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated¹¹⁹: One may not use Sabbatical oil to caulk¹²⁰ an oven or a hearth¹²¹; one does not use it to rub on shoes and sandals. Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin¹²² 16:4 translates the word by Arabic נֻטע “leather mat used as tablecloth or gaming board, in former times also during executions.” without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab¹²³ “slab, table,” cf. *Peah* Chapter 7, Note 61. Here some oil is lost by necessity. Rabban Gamliel permits gymnastics as legitimate exercise. to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it¹²⁴. footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Tosephta 6:9–12, in different order. ¹²⁰ This is the usual definition given by the dictionaries. One also might translate “to finish (to make the vessel workable)”, from the meaning of חסם in Arabic. ¹²¹ An oven is a clay vessel in the shape of a frustrum of a cone. The fire is at the bottom, the food to be baked hangs in the opening or clings to the sides. A hearth is a portable (usually double) fire place also made from clay. ¹²² Cf. Greek κατάβλημα, τό, “anything let down; tarpaulin; curtain, outer wrapper, etc.” (E. G.). The Gaonic commentary to Kelim ¹²³ Latin tabula ¹²⁴ According to R. Yose, using Sabbatical oil to oil leather is an unforgivable sin. According to R. Ḥizqiah, it is completely permitted and one does not even set money aside in the value of the oil used. [Maimonides accepts the opinion of R. Ḥizqiah, probably because R. Ḥizqiah precedes R. Yose in time but his opinion is quoted last for emphasis.] R. Aqiba did not want to communicate R. Eliezer’s opinions because they were too lenient. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:4) עוֹר שֶׁסָּכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן מַה אָמַר בּוֹ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ יִשְׂרֹפוּ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר מוּתָּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** What does Rebbi Eliezer say about him who oiled leather? Rebbi Yose said, that man’s bones should be burned. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: It is permitted¹²⁴. footnotes: ¹²⁴ According to R. Yose, using Sabbatical oil to oil leather is an unforgivable sin. According to R. Ḥizqiah, it is completely permitted and one does not even set money aside in the value of the oil used. [Maimonides accepts the opinion of R. Ḥizqiah, probably because R. Ḥizqiah precedes R. Yose in time but his opinion is quoted last for emphasis.] R. Aqiba did not want to communicate R. Eliezer’s opinions because they were too lenient. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:5) וְעוֹד אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאָסוּר לְחָבֵר לִיקַּח בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא מַתִּיר הָיָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר חֲמֵיצָן שֶׁל כּוּתִּים לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מִיַּד. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “They also said before him.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a fellow is forbidden to marry the daughter of a vulgar¹²⁶. Rebbi Yose’s argument is that as the Samaritans, who accept the written Torah but not the oral tradition, while trying to comply with the laws of the Torah will unwittingly transgress many of them, so also the children of the uneducated will not be able to have a kosher household even if they want to. This argument uses the Babylonian definition of “vulgar”!. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Eliezer used to permit the leavened matter of a Samaritan immediately after Passover¹²⁷. footnotes: ¹²⁶ For the definition of these terms, see the Introduction to Tractate Demay ¹²⁷ Since the Samaritans reject the oral law, they will completely eliminate their leavened matter before Passover, rather than sell it to a Gentile. Therefore, after Passover they will have no forbidden leavened matter they would not eat but could try to sell to a Jew. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:6) הָדָא דְתֵימָר בְּאִילֵּין דֵּומֹסִיָיא בְּרָם בְּאִילֵּין פְּרִיבָטָה אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** This means, in public baths¹²⁹, but in private ones¹³⁰(*balnea*), “private (baths)”. it is forbidden. footnotes: ¹²⁹ Greek δημόσιος, α, ον “belonging to the public or the state” [e. g., βαλανεῖα “baths”]. Even though straw is animal fodder and as such sanctified in the Sabbatical, the utility of public use overrides the potential abuse of Sabbatical matter. ¹³⁰ Latin privata ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:7) אִם מִתְחַשֵּׁב הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִרְחוֹץ. וְאִם הָיָה אָדָם שֶׁל צוּרָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִרְחוֹץ. כְּהָדָא רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֲזַל מִן לוֹד לְבֵית גֻּבְרִין בְּגִין מִיסְחֵי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “If somebody considers himself an important person, he should not bathe there”. If somebody is an important person, he should not bathe¹³¹. For example, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went from Lod to Bet Gubrin¹³² to bathe. footnotes: ¹³¹ This is a case where a show of modesty is inappropriate. ¹³² He was not known in Bet Gubrin which is a day’s walk South of Lod. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 8:8:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sheviit/r/8:8:8) רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הֲוָה בְּבוֹצְרָה. חָמְתוֹן מְזַלְּפִין לְהָדָא אַפְרוֹדִיטִי אָמַר לוֹן לֵית אֲסִיר. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק אֵין דָּבָר שֶׁל רַבִּים אָסוּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was in Bostra. He saw them sprinkling at that Aphrodite¹³². He said to them, is that not forbidden? He went to ask Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan told him in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Nothing public is forbidden. footnotes: ¹³² He was not known in Bet Gubrin which is a day’s walk South of Lod.