MISHNAH: If somebody hires a worker to work for him on libation wine, his wages are forbidden¹. If he hired him for other work, even though he told him, transport an amphora of libation wine for me from one place to another, his wages are permitted².

footnotes: ¹ If a Gentile hires a Jewish worker specifically to work on his wine, the wages are forbidden to the worker for all usufruct. The rule which makes it impossible for the Jewish worker to be hired in this way is purely rabbinical; it is not implied by the fact that libation wine is forbidden for usufruct for a Jewish owner. ² The moment that libation wine was not mentioned at the time of the hiring, there is no obligation on the worker to refrain from being occupied with libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a worker,” etc. Does he not give him his wages? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They fined him a fine³.

footnotes: ³ A customary restriction without justification in law.

⁴8:6, Notes 94–98. It was stated⁵6:26.: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are sabbatical.⁶” Rebbi Zeira said, this *baraita* deals with permitted produce. And what Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai that they should not accept in their hands⁷ the reading בידיהן “in their hands” is superior to the reading בדיהן “of their olive presses” of both *Ševiit* mss. There is no question why one should be paid in wine for using an olive press. wine as wages but money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah⁸(8:4 Note 69, Tosephta 6:21) forbid to pay for anything, even for food, with sabbatical produce.. Rebbi Ilai said, this baraita deals with idolatrous produce⁹: “forbidden produce”, stored sabbatical produce at a time when wild animals no longer can find produce on the fields, which has to be consumed immediately.. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in matters of libation wine they fined him a fine.

footnotes: ⁴ This paragraph is a shortened and somewhat corrupt copy of one in Ševiit ⁵ Babli 62a, Tosephta Ševiit ⁶ They should only be used to buy Sabbatical produce to be eaten, not processed. ⁷ While the paragraph in general looks like a bad copy of the one in Ševiit, ⁸ Who in Ševiit ⁹ This reading is quite impossible; idolatrous produce does not exist. In Ševi`it

If he transported for him amphora against amphora¹⁰, you fine him in his own amphora up to the amount of his wages¹¹. If he paid him his wages in land. Everywhere you are saying that land is not forbidden¹², here it is forbidden. If he paid him his wages in an animal. Everywhere you are saying that anything breathing is not forbidden¹³, here it is forbidden. If he gave him anything as his wages¹⁴, is everything forbidden or only up to the amount of his wages? If he worked for him for goodwill, do you impound his property in the value of his wages?

footnotes: ¹⁰ The language is not clear and the proposed interpretations are unfounded. It seems that the worker is not paid as a worker for his time but as a contractor by the piece, and is not paid in money but receives an (empty) amphora.In the entire paragraph it is equally possible not to read the sentences as apodictic statements but as questions. If he is paid in land, is the land forbidden? Etc. ¹¹ That he might be forced to sell the amphora and destroy coins in the equivalent of his wages. ¹² Halakhah 3:6, Note 125. ¹³ Halakhah 3:6, Note 140. ¹⁴ Which clearly is worth more than the amount due for his wages.

If he worked for him half a day in prohibition and half a day in permission. If he was selling profane [food] and Second Tithe together, [the buyer] has the choice of treating as profane what he chooses and as Second Tithe what he chooses¹⁵.. Is this the same here? Let us hear from the following¹⁶8:4 Note 65. In the first case the worker is hired as a contractor, in the second as a worker who has to be paid for his time.. If somebody hires a worker to bring wine to a sick person; if he delivered [the employer] has to pay him, otherwise he does not have to pay him. But if he told him, wine for a sick person from place X, an apple for a sick person from place X, whether or not he delivered he has to pay him, for he pays the wages of his feet. And here, does he not pay the wages of his feet¹⁷?

footnotes: ¹⁵ This statement is not found in any parallel source but no opposing opinion is noted. While it is necessary to “give a name” to the Second Tithe due for a harvest, it is not necessary bodily to separate it from the remainder of the harvest. If the farmer does not intend to bring his tithe bodily to Jerusalem, he may sell it and transfer its sanctity to the money. The buyer then has to separate tithe from profane food but is not restricted in his choice; cf. Introduction to Tractate Maaser Šeni ¹⁶ Ševiit ¹⁷ There is no reason to impound the wages for the time he worked in a permitted way.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he hired him to break amphoras of libation wine; is it forbidden anyhow¹⁸?

footnotes: ¹⁸ In the Babli 63b the question was asked by Amoraim of the second generation and answered in the negative.

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited¹⁹. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.²⁰” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?²¹ as stating that the Jew may accept the money as long as the Gentile does not explicitly declare it as idol’s proceeds.”

footnotes: ¹⁹ They are not forbidden to the Gentile, only to a Jew who knows that this money was received as payment for wine whose usufruct is forbidden to Jews. From the argument in the text it seems possible that one should read; “Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile and the proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited”, since in the proof texts wine and idols are always treated in parallel. On the other hand, the preceding text (Notes 11–12) notes that the prohibition of wine, a purely rabbinic custom, follows much stricter rules than the biblical prohibition of idols. ²⁰ Babli 64a. If the Gentile tells the Jew that he gives him money received for forbidden wine or idols, the Jew may not accept since we must assume that the Gentile tells the truth. In the Babli’s tradition, this is accepted by everybody; in the Yerushalmi this is particular to R. Joḥanan. ²¹ This is read as meaning that in all cases the Jew may accept the money and does not have to worry that people will say that he accepts idol money. The Babli would interpret the baraita

²² Everybody agrees that substitutes are forbidden. What about substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Ḥanina said, a disagreement between Rebbi Ismael and the rabbis. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, forbidden. But the rabbis say, permitted. Rebbi Eleazar ben Hoshaia, the reason of the rabbis, you would be banned like itself²³. 7:26.. Anything which you can keep from it is like itself²⁴. What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, like itself, like itself two times²⁵, because of nothing should cling to your hand from the ban²⁶. 13:18..

footnotes: ²² The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b. Anything received in barter for an idol must be destroyed as if it were the idol itself. ²³ Deut ²⁴ Any proceeds are like the idol itself. But nothing is said about proceeds for barter of the proceeds. ²⁵ The expression חֶרֶם כָּמוֹהוּ appears only once in the biblical text. The argument gives the reason for R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s position. If the proceeds obtained by barter for an idol are an idol, then the proceeds in barter for the proceeds are also an idol; in effect, the prohibition never stops. ²⁶ Deut

MISHNAH: If somebody²⁷ hires a donkey to transport libation wine, its wages are forbidden. If he hired it to sit on it, even though he put his barrel²⁸“bottle”, also a measure. Middle High German lâgen“small barrel; a measure of volume or weight”. on it, its wages are permitted.

footnotes: ²⁷ A Gentile. The Mishnah is parallel to Mishnah 1; only rentals made for the explicit purpose of transporting libation wine (or idols) is forbidden, not occasional use if the hiring was for general purposes. ²⁸ Greek λάγυνος, λάγηνος, Latin lagena

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a donkey,” etc. How far? Up to when the donkey takes offense²⁹.

footnotes: ²⁹ If the weight of the rider and the barrel would be more than the normal load of a donkey, the contract would be for transporting the wine and illegal.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden³⁰; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted³¹, such as vinegar on broken beans³².

footnotes: ³⁰ If the taste of the forbidden wine improves the taste of the food on which it fell. ³¹ If the spill was accidental, it is not necessary that the wine actually diminish the value or enjoyment of the food on which it fell. ³² In the Halakhah both here and in the Babli (67a) R. Joḥanan restricts this to wine falling on a dish of hot broken beans or peas.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell on grapes,” etc. Our Mishnah if their seal is not loosened. But if their seal was loosened they are as injured³³.

footnotes: ³³ Grapes which still sit on the vine with intact skin are sealed; if libation wine falls on them one washes the bunch and it is permitted. But loose grapes have a hole where they were sitting on the vine; the libation wine enters through this hole and cannot be removed.

How do you treat them³⁴? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish³⁵? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages³⁶.

footnotes: ³⁴ What is the reason that injured grapes on which libation wine fell are forbidden? ³⁵ If wine of one kind is mixed with wine of another type, for wine cognoscenti this definitely is spoilage. But wine added to a cooked dish improves the taste. ³⁶ As noted later, if the forbidden admixture improves the taste, the mixture is forbidden according to everybody. But if it spoils the taste, the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meїr do permit consumption of the food.

³⁷ Rebbi Joḥanan said, this you say if it is hot. But cold it is forbidden, for the people of Sepphoris are used to make it and call it laxative³⁸24b, Rebbi told R. Ḥiyya the Babylonian to be careful if he quotes Is 8:17, “I am waiting (וְחִכִּיתִי) for the Eternal”, not to blaspheme by saying “I am hitting (וְהִכִּיתִי).” Now שְׁחַלַיִים are watercresses, not making sense for the context. The root שהל is not documented in Hebrew or any of the Talmudic Aramaic dialects; but one of the many meanings of Arabic سمل is “to purge, to act as laxative.” This is taken as the meaning here. It cannot be determined whether the word was pronounced with שׁ or שׂ, even though שׁ is more likely.. If it was hot and one cooled it down? Then even hot it should be forbidden since usually it cools down³⁹.

footnotes: ³⁷ This paragraph is an intrusion here; it should be placed at the end of the Halakhah since it refers to the last statement in the Mishnah, forbidden vinegar on broken beans. Ihe parallel is in the Babli, 67a. ³⁸ In the Babli, the dish of Sepphoris is called שחליים. This probably comes from the Babylonian pronunciation of ח as ה. As the Babli reports, Megillah ³⁹ An implied answer to this question is found in the Babli: Vinegar in the cold dish improves the taste and therefore makes it forbidden. If the dish then is heated the vinegar spoils the taste but this does not remove the prohibition. Cooling the dish after heating leaves the dish spoiled.

⁴⁰10:2 (Notes 20–24), Orlah2:5 (Note 121). It is the continuation of the discussion why and under which condition contamination with libation wine makes food prohibited. Babli 67b/68a. As we have stated⁴¹8:9.. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there⁴²10:2. The barley grains are heave, forbidden to anybody but a Cohen. Since they spoil the taste of the water, they impart no sanctity to it. The water remains permitted to everybody.: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion⁴³ and Terumot: “About this Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is in dispute, Rebbi Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ This paragraph is a corrupted version of one in Terumot ⁴¹ Tosephta Terumot ⁴² Mishnah Terumot ⁴³ This sentence and the following one are impossible; Rebbi Meïr the fourth-generation Tanna cannot engage in a discussion with the second generation Amoraim RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish. The correct statements are from Orlah

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who with a Jew was transporting wine jugs from one place to another, if it can be presumed to be watched it is permitted⁴⁴. If he told him that he was leaving⁴⁵, the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole⁴⁶; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ The Jew transports kosher wine and hires a Gentile as help. Even if the Jew does not see the Gentile at every moment; the fact that the Jew is around will prevent the Gentile from touching the wine if he knows that he would lose his job and face a damage suit. ⁴⁵ The Jew informed the Gentile that he was leaving for some time. ⁴⁶ The containers are of clay and are closed. If the expected time of absence of the owner is sufficient for the Gentile to drill a hole in the cover, close it again and seal it, the wine becomes forbidden. ⁴⁷ He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was transporting,” etc. Rebbi Samuel said, it happened that a Non-Jew was transporting wine jugs with a Jew from one place to another. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who forbade. They said, the case was about open [containers]⁴⁸. Rebbi Zeriqan said, not only full ones but also short ones; for he suddenly could have touched with his hand and removed it⁴⁹.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The ruling of R. Abbahu does not contradict the Mishnah. The wine containers are only “presumed to be watched” if on top they are closed with a clay cover. Open containers, where the wine could be touched in no time, are never “presumed to be watched”. ⁴⁹ Even if the container has a narrow neck and is not full, so that even without a cover it is not possible for the Gentile to touch the wine and remove his hand in less than a second, the wine is forbidden.

You may be of the opinion that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s statement was a leniency, but rather it is a stringency. For the opening of the rabbis leaves little of the cover⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ While Rabban Simeon requires time for the cover to dry, he envisages the possibility that the Gentile drill a small hole in the cover, whereas the rabbis only contemplate the removal of most of the old cover.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Immi: A roasted egg of Samaritans is permitted⁵¹. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Samaritans’ dishes are permitted. This is what you say about a dish usually made without wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he put some in, it is forbidden even for usufruct⁵². As what had been stated: In earlier times they used to say, why is the wine of Ogdor forbidden? Because of Kefar-Pagesh, and of Burgata because of the Saracen tower, and of the Kushit spring because of Kefar Shalem⁵³ may be the place mentioned in Gen. 33.18 as situated near Sichem.. They changed to say, open it⁵⁴ is everywhere forbidden, sealed it is permitted. Perforated and repaired it is like sealed, Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, it is like open. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I can confirm. If it has a cavity on it⁵⁵ to read קירי “cera, wax” instead of יקיר is not very convincing; a wax seal can easily be counterfeit. The explanation of M. Sokoloff, to read here as at other places “worth, expense” is even less convincing; it seems illogical to assume that wine was not tampered with because it was expensive. The explanation given is based on Arabic وقر “cavity”. If the clay seal on top of the amphora is not plane it probably is original, if it is smooth it may have been tampered with. it was not opened, otherwise it was opened. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to the city of Samaria⁵⁶6a, he was sent by R. Meїr to buy wine from Samaritans.. The scribe came to him. He told him, bring me a closed jug⁵⁷. He answered him, there is a spring in front of you, drink. He importuned him; he said, there is a spring in front of you, drink. When he saw that he was going to importune him, he told him, if you are master of yourself, there is a spring in front of you, drink. But if your soul brings you to rebellion, you are going to swallow a knife if you are too covetous⁵⁸. 23:2.. The Samaritans already are degenerate⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵¹ There is no suspicion that it not be kosher. ⁵² Samaritan wine is forbidden as if it were Gentile wine. ⁵³ These places are not identified; also it is not clear whether the wine of the first mentioned locality is forbidden because it is Samaritan close to the second one settled by Gentiles, or that the first locality is Jewish and the second Samaritan. Kefar Shalem ⁵⁴ Wine sold in open amphoras since there is no controlling who might have touched it. ⁵⁵ This translation is tentative; it is offered as an educated guess. The proposal of Pene Moshe ⁵⁶ In the Babli, Ḥulin ⁵⁷ Of wine to drink. ⁵⁸ Prov ⁵⁹ This projects the Amoraic development of separation of Jews from Samaritans into Tannaitic times (and it was not complete even in Fatimid Egypt.)

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose went to the wellknown Neapolis⁶⁰. The Samaritans came to him. He told them, I am seeing you bowing down not to this mountain but to the idols under it, as it is written, he hid them under the terebinth near Sichem⁶¹. 35:4.. He heard their voices saying, let us get up early and gather those thorns. He understood that they intended to kill him; he got up early and left.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The former Sichem, today Nablus. ⁶¹ Gen

Rebbi Aḥa went to Emmaus and ate something made in boiling water⁶². Rebbi Jeremiah ate pickles. Rebbi Ḥizqiah ate locusts⁶³5b).. Rebbi Abbahu forbade their wine on the testimony of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi who went up King’s Mountain and saw a Gentile who was suspected because of wine⁶⁴. They came and said it before him. He told them, but not as a pretext⁶⁵. But some say, one Sabbath eve no wine was found in all of Samaria⁶⁶. When Sabbath ended, it was found full from what the Arameans brought and the Samaritans accepted from them⁶⁷. But some say, when King Diocletian came here he decided and said, all peoples have to offer libations except the Jews. The Samaritans offered libations and their wine was forbidden. But some say, they have a kind of dove and they offer libations to it.

footnotes: ⁶² Dumplings or bagels, any grain product prepared in hot water is called חָלוּט. ⁶³ All three considered Samaritan cooking as kosher. (Also Samaritan slaughter, Babli Ḥulin ⁶⁴ He was suspected of selling Gentile wine to Samaritans. The latter, as Sadducees, had no reason to forbid Gentile wine which was not actually used in pagan exercises. ⁶⁵ He wanted to forbid Samaritan wine only upon solid evidence. ⁶⁶ The district. ⁶⁷ As noted earlier, they had no reason to forbid Gentile wine. But this made Samaritan wine equal to Gentile wine for rabbinic Jews. Of all reasons given, this seems the most plausible.

The Samaritans of Caesarea asked Rebbi Abbahu: Your fathers were providing themselves from us⁶⁸. Why are you not providing yourselves from us? He answered them, your fathers did not spoil their deeds⁶⁹25a *s. v.*שרצועה., you are spoiling your deeds.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ They were buying Samaritan wine for personal use. ⁶⁹ One could assume that in earlier times Samaritan wine was made according to rabbinic standards. Tosaphot Ḥagigah

There⁷⁰8:1. we have stated: “The Land of Israel is pure and its ritual baths are pure⁷¹(a Roman culleus, 20 amphorae) as required by rabbinic tradition. A visitor may use any such miqweh without first investigating its status. Cf. Berakhot3:4, Notes 164–166..” ⁷²6:1.“The land of the Samaritans is pure; its ritual baths, and its dwellings⁷³61a, attributed to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.), and its paths are pure.” Its paths are pure; it is a presumption that they would not select a path unless it was pure⁷⁴. And its ritual baths are pure; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose⁷⁵: that is, to believe them that they are not from drawn water⁷⁶, but not for the measure of forty; for they explain, only a spring or a cistern, a collection of water⁷⁷. 11:36.,” just as a spring cleanses in any amount, any collection of water cleanses in any amount⁷⁸9(1) the argument attributed here to Samaritans (as Sadducees) is rejected only because of the rule that אַךְ “only” must indicate an exclusion. This characterizes the rule that flowing water purifies in any quantity but standing water only in 40 seah as rabbinical but in essence it is also found in the Damascus Document CD X 11...

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Mishnah Miqwaot ⁷¹ There is a universal presumption that every Jewish congregation in the Land of Israel will see to it that its ritual baths are built according to the rules (in particular, that the water is natural, ground water or rain water, not from vessels, and that the amount of water is at last 40 seah ⁷² Tosephta Miqwaot ⁷³ Gentile dwellings and paths are impure even in the Land of Israel since one has to worry that Gentiles bury their stillborn in their dirt floors or on their paths. Anybody walking over such a spot would become impure by “tent impurity.” The opinion that Gentiles are not sources of “tent impurity” is not found in Yerushalmi sources (Babli Yebamot ⁷⁴ They are assumed to be more strict in matters of impurity than rabbinic Jews. ⁷⁵ The Tanna. ⁷⁶ Which is a source of impurity. ⁷⁷ Lev ⁷⁸ In Sifra Šemini Paraššah

They asked Rebbi Abbahu: What is the status of their parboiled food⁷⁹? He told them, if only we also could prohibit their water! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It is permitted to lend to the Samaritans of Caesarea on interest⁸⁰. Rebbi Yose asked, if that is so, we should not be worried about their ḥallah; but we see that the rabbis do worry⁸¹ and should he give it would not have any holiness. If the rabbis insist that Samaritan bread may be used only if ḥallah had duly been given, the attitude of R. Jacob bar Aḥa and R. Abbahu is rejected. Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa was one of the teachers of R. Yose, one has to assume that the latter’s position is that of his foremost teacher, R. Jeremiah..

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Which only could be forbidden if Samaritans were considered Gentiles. ⁸⁰ He considers them as Gentiles. ⁸¹ A Gentile baker does not have to give ḥallah

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves his wine on a cart⁸². The teamster transporting the wine (in sealed amphoras) is Gentile. or a ship⁸³ and went by a short-cut⁸⁴(iter); cf. Berakhot1:1, Note 36., [even if] he entered a town and took a bath⁸⁵, it is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving⁴⁵, the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole⁴⁶; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁸² Latin carrum ⁸³ A ship on a river. ⁸⁴ Latin compendiarium ⁸⁵ The Jew is out of sight and away for an extended period. Nevertheless the wine is permitted if the Gentile has to expect every minute that the owner of the wine might return. ⁴⁵ The Jew informed the Gentile that he was leaving for some time. ⁴⁶ The containers are of clay and are closed. If the expected time of absence of the owner is sufficient for the Gentile to drill a hole in the cover, close it again and seal it, the wine becomes forbidden. ⁴⁷ He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves his wine on a cart,” etc. ⁸⁶240 (edition of Makhon Yerushalaim 2010, vol. 3 p. 650b); referred to in the Babli, Šabbat122a. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it happened that a cart of the family of Rebbi was leaving for more than four mil⁸⁷ referred to here probably is a quarter of a Greek parasanges, 1380 m.. The case came before the rabbis who declared it kosher. It was on the road to Sidon populated by Jews⁸⁸. Rebbi Ḥanina⁸⁹, R. Ḥama, a more likely reading. The attribution to R. Ḥanina of the original statement is confirmed by the Babli. said, sometimes he sees a fence formed by thorn bushes⁹⁰ and he thinks that they are people and is afraid.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Quoted in Or Zarua ⁸⁷ The distance between the Jewish overseer and the Gentile driver. The mil ⁸⁸ In this interpretation, such a large distance is acceptable only if the cart at all times was seen by Jews. ⁸⁹ In Or Zarua ⁹⁰ Which may look like human shapes at a distance.

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store, even though he [intermittently] leaves and returns, [the wine] is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving⁴⁵, the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole⁴⁶; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ The Jew informed the Gentile that he was leaving for some time. ⁴⁶ The containers are of clay and are closed. If the expected time of absence of the owner is sufficient for the Gentile to drill a hole in the cover, close it again and seal it, the wine becomes forbidden. ⁴⁷ He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?⁹¹7:4. Since an anonymous Mishnah is supposed to follow R. Meïr’s formulation, an apparent contradiction between two statements attributed to R. Meïr must be resolved. Since the wine in the store is for sale, it is stored in open amphoras. The wine would become forbidden for usufruct if touched by the Gentile. In our Mishnah it seems that R. Meïr assumes that the Gentile will not touch the open amphoras. But in Mishnah Tahorot7:4 he holds that if a woman keeping all rules of ritual purity invites one careless in these matters to help her in her home all vessels in the home become impure since one must assume that the helper is impure and touches everything in sight.” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall⁹², for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure⁹³, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine⁹⁴.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Mishnah Tahorot ⁹² The explanation is Rashi’s (70b, Bava batra 2b). The etymology is unknown; the word certainly is different from פְּסֵיפָס ψῆφος “pebble”. ⁹³ A courtyard (in the back of houses or walled in, not directly open to the street) has been divided by a low wall as a sign that each party has only the use of its own part. Even though it is easy to step over the partition, the fact that it is raised is enough to create the presumption that the parties will abide by the rules and not trespass. If the dwellers in one part are scrupulous in observing the rules of purity while the others are not (or are Gentiles), the vessels standing in the courtyard of the observant party remain pure. Similarly, if one party is Jewish and the other Gentile, wine amphoras stored in the the Jewish part remain permitted since the presumption is that the Gentile will not enter the Jewish part. ⁹⁴ While a store catering to customers observant in matters of purity certainly cannot have a Gentile employee, a grocery store for the general public can have such an employee. In the Babli, 70b, this is reported as the opinion of Rav, opposed by R. Joḥanan.

MISHNAH: If he was eating with him⁹⁵ at one table, he put a pitcher⁹⁶, Greek λάγηνος, λάγυνος; Note 28. The vessels contain wine. on the table and one on a Delphic table⁹⁷(sc. mensa); Chapter 3:2 Note 58. A small ornamental table in the form of the Pythia’s tripod., then let him stay there and left. Anything on the table is forbidden, on the Delphic table is permitted⁹⁸. But when he told him, mix with water and drink, also the one on the Delphic table is forbidden⁹⁹. Open amphoras are forbidden¹⁰⁰, sealed after the time needed to open, and close, and dry⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ A Gentile. ⁹⁶ Latin lagena ⁹⁷ Latin delphica ⁹⁸ If the Delphic table is out of the Gentile’s reach when the latter is sitting down. ⁹⁹ Since the Gentile guest was given permission to move around. ¹⁰⁰ Since wine is taken out from the open top with a bucket. As the French wine making authorities of the Middle ages pointed out, these rules do not necessarily apply to barrels from which the wine is drawn from a spigot near the bottom. ⁴⁷ He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.

HALAKHAH: “f he was eating with him,” etc. They wanted to say, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” out of the reach of his outstretched arms¹⁰¹. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet¹⁰², just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be the following. He who said, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” only if¹⁰³ out of the reach of his outstretched arms.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ In this first version, anything on a separate table is considered out of the reach of the Gentile’s hand even if physically it is within his reach. ¹⁰² Halakhah 4:11, Note 171. Since an impure person is presumed to make anything within his reach impure, a Gentile must be presumed to make all wine within his reach forbidden. ¹⁰³ Both prohibition and permission are conditional.

MISHNAH: If an investigative unit¹⁰⁴ came to a village in times of peace, open amphoras are forbidden¹⁰⁵ and sealed ones permitted. In times of war these and those are permitted since there is no time to make libations¹⁰⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Police or military who enter all houses. ¹⁰⁵ One may assume that they take from the wine whether or not it is legal. ¹⁰⁶ The soldiers cannot risk getting drunk.

HALAKHAH: “If an investigative unit came to a village,” etc. In times of a religious persecution all is forbidden¹⁰⁷; it is impossible that there was not a single Jew who worshipped it under duress. This implies that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew is never invalidated¹⁰⁸. Rebbi Yose said, you infer from this that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew under duress is never invalidated¹⁰⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ This does not refer to the Mishnah but to a text similar to Tosephta 5:6: Pedestals erected by Gentiles in times of religious persecution (as base for statues of the Emperor or of Rome, Halakhah 3:10 Note 231) are never annulled. ¹⁰⁸ This is a statement in Halakhah 4:4, Note 30, for which proof was not given there. ¹⁰⁹ The statement is much stronger than the one stated in Halakhah 4:4 since there one speaks of idols genuinely worshipped by a Jew. But here it follows that the act of worship by a Jew makes it permanently forbidden even if the only intent of the Jew was to escape martyrdom. Cf. Babli 54a.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “forbidden” here, only “permitted”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is “forbidden” here¹¹⁰. For if he reaches it he will inform him; if he does reach it he will not inform him, lest he owe him a favor¹¹¹. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the investigative unit comes in peaceful or warring manner¹¹².

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ R. Joḥanan deletes the first part of the Mishnah; R. Zeirah confirms the text of the Mishnah. ¹¹¹ If the investigator opens the wine amphora, he will inform the owner. Then the wine will be forbidden under the general rules of wine touched by a pagan; the Mishnah is not necessary in this case. If he does not open the amphora the owner may assume that the investigator did not inform him out of malice; even if there was time for new clay to dry (following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel) one may assume that the amphora was not touched. It is this later statement which R. Zeira objects to. ¹¹² It is not a question whether the investigators are sent by the villagers’ own government or a hostile power but whether they come with friendly or adversary intent, expecting collaboration or hostile reception.

A snake when pursuing him fell in a pit. The case came before the rabbis who declared it usable. They said, there was no time to deposit poison¹¹³.

footnotes: ¹¹³ This is an unrelated story; its connection with the Mishnah is the expression “there was no time” to cause damage. The problem here is the general prohibition to drink water or wine that was left standing unsupervised. This is a sanitary, not a religious, rule since we are afraid that a poisonous snake could have drunk from the fluid and in the process left its own poison in the fluid; Halakhah 2:3. Here it is noted that if the snake fell into a cistern full of wine while attacking (a human?, an animal?) it is not intent on drinking but will try to get out, so as not to drown, as fast as possible. Therefore there is no health hazard in drinking the wine.

MISHNAH: Jewish craftsmen whom a Gentile sent an amphora of libation wine¹¹⁴ as their wages are permitted to tell him, give us its worth¹¹⁵. After it came to their possession it is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Which is forbidden for usufruct to the Jew and therefore worthless to them. ¹¹⁵ They can refuse to accept the amphora and ask for payment in money. But they cannot accept the merchandise and then request that it be exchanged for money; this would be usufruct of forbidden wine, not payment for work done.

HALAKHAH: “Jewish craftsmen,” etc. Is it not forbidden because of libation wine? Bar Qappara stated, if he sends it to houses¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ If the amphora were delivered by a Jewish teamster, he would act as the Jew’s agent and the wine would be forbidden. Similarly, if the wine were delivered by a Gentile to the property of the artisan, the delivery would effect the transfer of property rights and the wine would be forbidden. Therefore one must assume that the Jew rents his place of work in a building dedicated to artisans’ workshops; delivery there by a Gentile transporter does not transfer property rights and the artisan may refuse acceptance and require payment in coin.

MISHNAH: If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted¹¹⁷; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden¹¹⁸. If he took the funnel and measured into a Non-Jew’s vessel, then took it and measured into the vessel of a Jew, if it is contaminated with wine it is forbidden¹¹⁹. If somebody pours from a vessel to another, what is poured from is permitted¹²⁰, what is poured into is forbidden¹²¹.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ The entire amphora is sold wholesale for a fixed price. By accepting the deal the Gentile becomes the owner and owes the money to the Jew. If then he takes the measuring rod and dips it into the wine, the wine already is his property and what he does with it is irrelevant for Jewish law. ¹¹⁸ If the Gentile buys the wine by volume, the contents of the amphora have to be measured before the deal is concluded. It is essential that the measuring be done by a Jew since if the Gentile dips the rod into the amphora he is moving the wine and this turns it into libation wine forbidden for usufruct. ¹¹⁹ If the wine is sold in retail quantities and a funnel is used to pour from the amphora into a smaller vessel, it is essential that the funnel be thoroughly cleansed after wine was sold to a Gentile. Since the wine becomes forbidden the moment it reaches the Gentile’s vessel, any drops clinging to the bottom of the funnel which was immersed in the Gentile’s wine also are forbidden. Since libation wine is forbidden in the most minute amounts, a single drop remaining on the funnel turns everything passing through the funnel into libation wine. ¹²⁰ While we hold that fluids conduct impurity, so that continuous pouring from a pure into an impure vessel will transfer the impurity to the fluid remaining in the upper vessel, we do not hold so for the prohibition of libation wine. Therefore if wine is poured from an amphora into a smaller vessel, the status of the smaller vessel has no influence on the status of the wine remaining in the amphora. ¹²¹ The Yerushalmi does not discuss whether wine poured from an amphora into a Gentile’s vessel becomes forbidden when it reaches the vessel or when it leaves the amphora. The difference is relevant to the previous case that a funnel was used in the process. In the first case, the funnel has to be cleansed only in that part which was immersed in the lower vessel; in the second case it has to be cleansed and dried thoroughly from top to bottom.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. ¹²² 1:4, Notes 420–429. The first paragraph belongs to the theory of transfer of property; it is irrelevant here. The origin of the second clearly is in Qiddušin since the Mishnah here is quoted as “there”, even though the text here is slightly better. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate¹²³? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

footnotes: ¹²² The text is copied from Qiddušin ¹²³ If there is firm intention to buy one could argue that the buyer already agreed to pay no less than the lowest price recorded for a similar product within the last few days. Then it would be irrelevant whether the wine was measured before or after the price was fixed. Since prices are influenced by news, the question could have been dismissed out of hand. Babli 72a.

What means “contaminated with wine”¹²⁴? If it is dirty, as one says, immersed in blood¹²⁵. 6:8..

footnotes: ¹²⁴ The expression is uncommon and in the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. is replaced by עֲכֶּבֶת “a remainder”. ¹²⁵ Hos

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden¹²⁶. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi¹²⁷ for Galilean Immi. forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours¹²⁸, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile¹²⁹. If somebody lets down¹³⁰ רגל (as Palestinian Aramaic verb) means. It is conjectured that it means “to turn upside down”. It is taken here in one of the meanings of Arabic رجل “to lower”. If a sealed kosher wineskin is handled by a Gentile it remains permitted. a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ If the Gentile tilts the Amphora, he moves the wine in it and the entire contents of the amphora become libation wine forbidden for all usufruct. Babli 60a. ¹²⁷ This is his Babli name; in the Yerushalmi he otherwise appears as R. Yasa. Possibly one also should read the Babylonian Ammi ¹²⁸ The Gentile keeps the opening of the wineskin in a fixed position; the Jew lifts the skin to pour. ¹²⁹ And even the wine remaining in the skin is forbidden. ¹³⁰ It is not too clear what the hapax

MISHNAH: Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount. Wine mixed with wine¹³¹ or water mixed with water¹³² in the most minute amount. Wine in water or water in wine, if it gives taste¹³³ Chapter 10.. This is the principle, kind in the same kind in the most minute amount, kind in another kind if it gives taste.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Libation wine mixed with kosher wine. ¹³² Holy water used for pagan rituals. ¹³³ In the practice of the Babli, if the forbidden substance is less than one sixtieth of the permitted; cf. Terumot

HALAKHAH: “Libation wine is forbidden,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, that is at a place where water is not sold by measure. But at a place where water is sold by measure it is like wine in wine¹³⁴.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ If water is so precious that it is sold bottled, mixing wine and water is mixing two equally important fluids and treated as equals. This rule is not found in the Babli.

¹³⁵ 2:7 (ע), Notes 158–174. The text there is superior in the tradition both of text and of names.Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last]¹³⁶ it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one¹³⁷ 2:10.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi¹²⁷ for Galilean Immi. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted¹³⁸. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water)¹³⁹ and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted¹⁴⁰.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Orlah ¹³⁶ Added from ע, needed for comprehension. ¹³⁷ Mishnah `Orlah ¹²⁷ This is his Babli name; in the Yerushalmi he otherwise appears as R. Yasa. Possibly one also should read the Babylonian Ammi ¹³⁸ Babli 73b. ¹³⁹ In ע “wine” (permitted wine). Only this makes sense; otherwise there would be no need to mention two different vessels. ¹⁴⁰ Babli 73a.

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following¹⁴¹) was originally written by the scribe; the text in brackets is his correction.: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city]¹⁴² bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer¹⁴².

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ The text in parentheses (identical with that in `Orlah ¹⁴² It is a practice universally accepted (probably by necessity when Sadducees were a viable Jewish sect), not a decision incorporated in a consistent theory of the law. ¹⁴² It is a practice universally accepted (probably by necessity when Sadducees were a viable Jewish sect), not a decision incorporated in a consistent theory of the law.

Rebbi Mani said before Rebbi Yose: as you are saying there¹⁴³, “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer”, also here practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. He said to him, for everything¹⁴⁴ but there corrected to דבר. The form דִּבָּה, Accadic dibbu, should be acknowledged, but it is not clear whether this is learned Hebrew speech or popular Aramaic.?

footnotes: ¹⁴³ In matters of leavened matter; does this apply to all cases of food prohibited in the most minute amount? The answer is negative. ¹⁴⁴ The scribe also wrote דבה in `Orlah

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount:¹⁴⁵ Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins¹⁴⁶, and an ox which was stoned¹⁴⁷. 21:28., and the calf whose neck was broken¹⁴⁸. 21:1–9., and the birds of the sufferer from skin disease¹⁴⁹, and the nazir’s hair¹⁵⁰. 6:18., and the firstborn donkey¹⁵¹. 13:13., and meat in milk¹⁵². 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., and profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct¹⁵³. 17:4.. These are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ The rule that anything which cannot be tasted in a mixture is irrelevant does not apply to these items. An admixture of one of these even if less than one in a thousand will make everything forbidden. ¹⁴⁶ Mishnah 2:3. ¹⁴⁷ Which killed a human, Ex ¹⁴⁸ To atone for an unsolved murder case, Deut ¹⁴⁹ For purification of the healed person, Lev. 14:4-6. ¹⁵⁰ Which has to be burned, Num ¹⁵¹ Which is not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen, Ex ¹⁵² Meat cooked in milk, Ex ¹⁵³ It is pointed out in the Halakhah that the biblical text forbids only the slaughter of dedicated animals outside the holy precinct, Lev

HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount,” etc. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, because nothing of the taboo should cling to your hand¹⁵⁴. 13:18. Sifry Deut. 96..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ Deut

An ox which was stoned. From the meaning of what was said, the ox shall be stoned¹⁴⁷. 21:28. would I not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? From here that it is forbidden for usufruct¹⁵⁵ 3:1 (Notes 26–28, Pesaḥim 2:1 28c), which is part of a lengthy discussion under which conditions a prohibition as food implies a prohibition of usufruct (*Orlah* 3:1, Notes 10–44; *Pesaḥim* 2:1; Babli *Pesaḥim* 21b, *Qiddušin* 56b, *Bava qamma* 41a, *Ḥulin* 114b) Since the mention of the prohibition as food is unnecessary, the ox qualifies as a case where the prohibition as food means prohibition of usufruct. In the Babylonian sources (*Bava qamma* 41a, *Mekhilta* *dR. Ismael Mišpatim* 10) it is agreed that it is obvious that a stoned animal was not ritually slaughtered and therefore is forbidden as meat but it is noted that the prohibition as food is necessary anyhow to show that if the ox was ritually slaughtered after conviction by the court, the slaughter is ineffective and does not permit the carcass to be eaten. Everybody agrees that if the ox was correctly slaughtered before a trial could be held the meat is kosher. The Babli has to find the prohibition of usufruct in another part of the verse which makes the prohibition one of rabbinic interpretation rather than biblical. Louis Ginzberg in his *Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah* (New York 1909) p. 280 has published a leaf of selections from the entire tractate. The passage referring to the paragraph under discussion reads there (vocalization added): וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל. סָקֹ֨ל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וג׳ מִמַּשְׁמַע שנ׳ סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לֹא יֵאָכֵל. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵֽאָכֵל֙. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְאַסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. ר׳ אַבָּ׳ בְשֶׁם ר׳ יוֹחָנָן כָּל־מָקוֹם שנ׳ לֹא יֵאָכֵל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ … אִסוּר And an ox which was stoned. *The ox should certainly be stoned*. From the meaning of what was said, *shall certainly be stoned* would we not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, *it shall not be eaten*? But that it is forbidden for eating and forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Abba[hu] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Any place where it says *shall not be eaten, you shall not eat* [it is forbidden for eating and forbidden for usufruct.] The addition to the text is from Orlah 3:1 (Note 10) or Pesaḥim 2:1 l. 15. In these and all Babli sources (quoted above) the statement is attributed to R. Eleazar, not R. Joḥanan (R. Eleazar’s teacher). The addition has to be considered a commentary. .

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Which killed a human, Ex ¹⁵⁵ This is a very short reference to a text in `Orlah

And the calf whose neck was broken. There, there. Since there mentioned further describes a prohibition of usufruct, also there said here implies prohibition of usufruct¹⁵⁶. 207. This is a case of equal cut. It is written in Deut. 21:4,and they shall break the calf’s neck there in the wadi. Also it is written in Num.20:1, there Miriam died and was buried there. Since a grave and all its appurtenances are forbidden for usufruct, and since the mention of there in Deut. 21:4 is not logically necessary, the prohibition of usufruct (and, as noted in the Babylonian sources, the obligation of burial) is transferred to the calf..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Babli 29b, Sifry Deut

And the birds of the sufferer from skin disease. Any pure bird you may eat¹⁵⁷. 14:11., this is the living bird. But the following you may not eat of them¹⁵⁸. 14:12., that is the slaughtered one¹⁵⁹. 103, Babli Qiddušin 57a, Ḥulin 82a. Since first it is said, any pure bird you may eat, which is immediately followed by but the following you may not eat of them, this implies that not only may one not eat the impure birds listed later but also some pure birds. Of the two pure birds used for the purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease, one is slaughtered (Lev. 14:5). The other is released (v. 7); since it is nor recognizable it cannot be forbidden to anybody who might catch it. Therefore the slaughtered bird must be the one pure bird which was correctly slaughtered and nevertheless is forbidden as food. The parallel sources also presuppose that the remains of the slaughtered bird, after its blood has benn used, is forbidden for usufruct but no explicit reason for that is given. One must assume that this is one of the cases where a prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct (cf. Note 155).. Or the other way around? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah has no prohibition of usufruct which applies to any living thing¹⁶⁰ 57a, opposed there by R. Simeon ben Laqish..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Deut ¹⁵⁸ Deut ¹⁵⁹ Sifry Deut ¹⁶⁰ Babli Qiddušin

And the nazir’s hair. He shall put it in the fire which is under the well-being offering¹. 6:18.¹⁶¹ use is forbidden (but not sanctionable)..

footnotes: ¹ Which has to be burned, Num ¹⁶¹ Using the hair as fuel is a kind of usufruct; since it is a positive commandment to burn the hair in this way, any other

And the firstborn donkey. Breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since there one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct, also here one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct¹⁶² 9b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 18, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai 13:13 (l. 25). This is heqqeš rather than “equal cut”. Since the only other case where the neck of a four-legged animal has to be broken is the atonement for an unsolved murder case, the rules of the latter have to be applied to the case where a rancher refuses to redeem the first born of his donkey. Since the rule has moral justification in the parallel sources, “he refused to give value to the Cohen; therefore value has to be denied him”, the rule has to be considered rabbinic rather than biblical..

footnotes: ¹⁶² Babli Bekhorot

And meat in milk. It was stated: At three places it is written do not cook a kid goat¹⁵². 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., about eating, about usufruct, and about cooking¹⁶³ 115b, Qiddušin 57b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 20 (opposed by Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:19, Sifry Re`eh 104)..

footnotes: ¹⁵² Meat cooked in milk, Ex ¹⁶³ Babli Ḥulin

And profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah said, slaughter what is Mine in My place¹⁵³. 17:4. and what is yours in yours. Since Mine in yours is forbidden, also yours in Mine¹⁶⁴ 57b where the argument if found unconvincing and other proofs are given.. Is it punished by extirpation? Does not Rebbi Ismael say, one infers by an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish by an argument de minore ad majus¹⁶⁵ 11:1 Note 50. There is no argument de minore ad majus involved here; more appropriate is the language of the Babli (Sanhedrin 54a, Makkot 5b,14a,17a): One does not punish by a logical argument (only by an explicit verse). One cannot object that extirpation anyhow is a matter for the Heavenly Court not bound by human arguments since offenses punishable by extirpation automatically are punishable by flogging by the human court. The exclusion of extirpation implies removal of the offense from human criminal justice.?

footnotes: ¹⁵³ It is pointed out in the Halakhah that the biblical text forbids only the slaughter of dedicated animals outside the holy precinct, Lev ¹⁶⁴ Babli Qiddušin ¹⁶⁵ Cf. Yebamot

Why did we not state carcasses with them¹⁶⁶ 3:6, Terumot 10:6; Babli Beṣah 3b).? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it did state only things forbidden for usufruct. Carcass meat is permitted for usufruct¹⁶⁷. 14:21.. They objected, is there not leavened matter on Passover¹⁶⁸? Leavened matter makes liable to extirpation¹⁶⁹. 12:15 (but only for eating, not for possession., but for these¹⁷⁰ there is no extirpation.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ Carcass meat as meat forbids only if it can be tasted, i. e., if it is more than 1/60 in a mixture. Therefore the question must be about entire carcasses which usually are sold by the piece; nothing usually sold by the piece can become insignificant (`Orlah ¹⁶⁷ Deut ¹⁶⁸ Here again one only considers loaves of bread which exclusively are sold by the piece and therefore cannot become insignificant. ¹⁶⁹ Ex ¹⁷⁰ The prohibited items enumerated in the Mishnah.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]¹⁷¹ and the editions based on the latter. The text in brackets is a correction by the scribe himself. In both cases the question is whether prohibitions of usufruct automatically imply the impossibility of disregarding minute amounts or whether the prohibition will be void if either the prohibited item is mixed with sufficiently many permitted items and is no longer recognizable or whether it reverts to the usual test of giving taste if shredded and mixed with others.? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces¹⁷². But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds¹⁷³. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds¹⁷⁴? When they came to study *Orlah* did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state¹⁷⁵ 3:3. Since a minimum length of a *si̇̄t* (Orlah 3:3 Note 82) is required, it is obvious that the prohibition of the nazir’s hair does not apply to minute amounts., “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given)¹⁷⁶ 3:3 (Note 94): אִילּוּ אִיְתָּבָת תַּמָּן אִית הֲווָת יְאוּת׃ If you had objected there you would have been correct, i. e., if when I asked the question in Avodah zarah about prohibitions of usufruct becoming insignificant you pointed out the Mishnah in `Orlah it would have been relevant. correctly.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ The text in parentheses is the original text written by the scribe, printed in the editio princeps ¹⁷² The question is legitimate for meat from such an ox. This question then reads טירוף. ¹⁷³ A slaughtered small bird among many of the same kind. Here one has to read צירוף. ¹⁷⁴ This is the one genuine question since hair is not sold by the unit; therefore the rabbinic prohibition of unufruct for admixtures of forbidden things sold by the piece (Note 166) does not apply. Here also the prohibition of usufruct is secondary; the question can arise only if the positive commandment of burning the hair in the fire cooking the well-being offering has not been followed. ¹⁷⁵ Mishnah Orlah ¹⁷⁶ The text as written here can be translated word for word but does not make any sense. It is a corruption of a text in Orlah

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell into a cistern, the entire cistern is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine contained in it¹⁷⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ If the wine is sold by volume, the Gentile shall not be required to pay for the volume of libation wine contained in the cistern. Libation wine cannot become insignificant; there is no volume of the cistern which would make the wine kosher to drink. According to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel the prohibition of usufruct does not extend to the mixture.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine¹⁷⁸. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel¹⁷⁹. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden¹⁸⁰. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine¹⁸¹. Rebbi Zeira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so¹⁸²? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Zeira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it¹⁸³.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ The lenient ruling of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is a traditional Babylonian one. ¹⁷⁹ In the Babli, 74a, this is a ruling of the prestigious Rav Naḥman. Here it is quoted in the name of obscure authorities because it is not unquestionable. ¹⁸⁰ As explained in Note 177, even for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel libation wine remains forbidden even in the most minute amount; it is only that the mixture does not entirely become forbidden for all usufruct. ¹⁸¹ This is Rav’s interpretation of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s ruling in the Babli 74a. If an amphora in a storage facility with at least two other amphoras was contaminated with libation wine and it can no longer be identified, all amphoras can be sold to Gentiles since for each single one the probability that it was the forbidden one is less than 50% which makes the sale acceptable by biblical standards. ¹⁸² That even a person rejecting the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel could agrees with the ruling. ¹⁸³ He does not question that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in all cases, also of a single cistern or a single amphora, following Samuel in the Babli 74a. He only makes it clear that this is a practical ruling without theoretical underpinning.

MISHNAH: A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched one has to wipe dry¹⁸⁴ and it is pure. But one of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch¹⁸⁵. And one of pottery, even if he removed the pitch, remains forbidden¹⁸⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ If the wine press is hewn into the local limestone, the walls of the vat under the press into which the pressed juice flows have to be made impermeable. If this is done by sealing with pitch, something has to be done that the pitch does not spoil the wine. The usual way of neutralizing the pitch was to wash it down with wine. The Yerushalmi does not specify how the wiping dry has to be done, probably because it was generally known, but the Halakhah implies that first everything has to be washed down with water for an extended period. The Babli specifies that in washing down an abrasive powder has to be used. ¹⁸⁵ Since wood is more absorbent than stone, a new insulation has to be applied. ¹⁸⁶ Pottery absorbs the wine; the walls of the vat become forbidden and cannot be repaired (except by standing empty for 12 months, by which time all organic material will have decomposed.)

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated¹⁸⁷: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say)¹⁸⁸. Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it¹⁸⁹. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi¹⁹⁰. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel¹⁹¹ 6:3 Note 38. The discussion is interrupted by the next sentence; it continues with “is the disagreement …”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi¹⁹². It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated¹⁹³: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure¹⁹⁴ and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil¹⁹⁵ 3:7) or a roller. one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next¹⁹⁶. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said¹⁹⁷, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity¹⁹⁸ so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal¹⁹⁹ 113b, Yebamot 62b, Ševuot 18b, Niddah 63b. Either day or night at the equinox or half a day during the summer solstice, half a night during the winter solstice..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ Babli 74b. A comparison with the text of the Babli shows that the text here is elliptic. It must read: The Mishnah follows Rebbi for stone and wood vessels, but does not follow Rebbi for pottery. ¹⁸⁸ It is obvious that for אוֹמְרִים “say” one has to read אוֹסְרִים “forbid”. What Rebbi permits and the Sages forbid is cleansing the earthenware vessels by wiping them dry. ¹⁸⁹ The text of the Babli is more explicit: In pitchers wine is stored, in other vessels it is filled only temporarily. ¹⁹⁰ The Babli does not discuss which opinion to follow but, since at other places it states the rule that practice follows Rebbi only if his opinion is opposed by a single dissenter, not against a majority opinion, the codifiers of Talmudic law follow the Sages in this matter. ¹⁹¹ Not paper cups but wicker work made with papyrus rope or stems; cf. Kilaim ¹⁹² There is Babylonian authority for following Rebbi; cf. Note 190. ¹⁹³ Tosephta 8:3, Babli 75a. ¹⁹⁴ Nothing connected to the ground can be impure except a leprous house. One speaks here of the movable parts and the implements belonging to a wine-press which in a standard sale contract would be sold with the building. ¹⁹⁵ Any ovaloid implement is called “lentil”; this may be a vessel (a hot water bottle, Tosephta Šabbat ¹⁹⁶ If one has to wait a full 12 months one loses the use of the press for one full harvest. ¹⁹⁷ In the Babylonian sources, Babli and Tosephta: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the name of R. Yose. ¹⁹⁸ Even though one uses the expression “to make the wine in purity” as equivalent to “making kosher wine” (Halakhah 4:12), here one speaks of purity in the exact biblical meaning. ¹⁹⁹ Babli 75a, Pesaḥim

MISHNAH: If somebody buys crockery²⁰⁰ from a Gentile, what usually is immersed one immerses²⁰¹. 31:21–23. If the item has not been used for non-kosher food and is of metal, it is immersed in water., cleansed in boiling water one cleanses in boiling water, making glowing white in fire one makes glowing white²⁰². As a general principle, what was used only cold simply has to be cleansed, what was used with hot fluids must be cleansed with boiling water, and what was used in the fire must be exposed to fire.. The spit and the grill²⁰³ one makes glowing white in fire but a knife one rubs clean²⁰⁴ and it is pure.

footnotes: ²⁰⁰ Any vessels and utensils used for the preparation or serving of food. ²⁰¹ The basic source is Num ²⁰² The rules for cleansing vessels from non-kosher food are identical with those for cleansing kosher vessels from leavened matter for Passover and discussed in Tractate Pesaḥim ²⁰³ Greek ἐσχάρα, with change of the liquid. ²⁰⁴ As explained in the Halakhah, one pushes it three times into hard soil. This should eliminate all fat particles clinging to the knife.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “²⁰⁵ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles²⁰⁶ one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them²⁰⁷; another version denies the obligation., as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara²⁰⁸ and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos²⁰⁹. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel²¹⁰. He went out and we want to learn²¹¹. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted²¹²., a statement of R. Naḥman (bar Jacob).. Then even vessels²¹³. 31:21–24.. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them²¹⁴.

footnotes: ²⁰⁵ Babli 75b, Tosephta 8:2. In these texts, the formulation is much more clear. If a vessel is new, one simply immerses it. If it was used cold like cups, one washes them clean. If it was used hot or for cooking, it has to be cleansed by boiling water. ²⁰⁶ Latin cucuma. ²⁰⁷ One has to immerse any vessel bought from a Gentile to convert it to a Jewish vessel. In the Babli (Note 205) this is one version of the preceding baraita ²⁰⁸ The place were calendar computations and proclamations were held and all leading scholars of the time came together. The names of persons involved here are probably corrupt. R. Immi cannot ask for instruction from R. Jeremiah, the student of his colleagues R. Yasa’s student R. Ze`ira. ²⁰⁹ From the context it appears that these were Gentiles. ²¹⁰ This opinion is not found in any other source. ²¹¹ While the meaning of the sentence is clear, the text is corrupt and cannot be vocalized to make sense as it stands. The people who asked R. Jeremiah did not accept his ruling, they decided to look around for other opinions. Possibly then the sentence was נֵצֵא לַחוּץ וְנִלְמַד “let us go out and study.” ²¹² In the Babli, loc. cit ²¹³ New earthenware vessels, not covered by reference to Num ²¹⁴ As a matter of practice, not theoretical obligation.

Here you say, one washes them clean and they are pure. But there you say, one cleanses them in boiling water. One is more stringent with the abominations of Gentiles²¹⁵ is correct that the Mishnah here requires that spit and grill be cleansed in fire whereas in Mishnah Zevaḥim 11:7 it is only required that spit and grill used in the Temple be cleaned by boiling water. The answer is that while the cleansing of the utensils in the Temple is a biblical requirement (Lev. 6:21) the rabbinic requirement of cleansing from forbidden cooking follows rules that are more strict..

footnotes: ²¹⁵ It is difficult to make sense of this passage. Most probably the explanation of Pene Moshe

A knife one sticks into the ground three times and it is enough²¹⁶. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: That is for a small knife. But a large knife needs to become white hot, and in its being white hot it is necessary that sparks fly from it²¹⁷., makes a difference between a knife used for cold food which can be cleansed in the ground and one used hot which needs cleansing in boiling water..

footnotes: ²¹⁶ In the Babli, 76b, ten times in hard ground, and only for a knife without depressions. ²¹⁷ The Babli, loc. cit