MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab¹ and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated², different kinds³ are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines¹⁸ with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

footnotes: ¹ They separately made bread dough and now are baking it together in the same oven. Separately, the doughs are exempt but both together are obligated since 2 5/4. ² If the doughs touch or are on the same baking sheet. ³ This is defined in Mishnah 4:2. ¹⁸ Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 40 ff.

HALAKHAH: “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind⁴ 7:1), followed by the later law codes, there is no difference between men and women in this matter. According to R. M. Margalit, the Mishnah specifies women because women are neat and insist that their bread be separate from that of others while men usually do not care. The later statement of R. Lazar seems to support R. M. Margalit but the uncertain gender in the text of the Halakhah might support Maimonides.. They gave to one woman who minds⁵ the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she⁶ makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour]⁷, she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women⁸ 1:7, fol. 17a; Babli Giṭṭin 90a) men have different standards of cleanliness. Some men will not drink any more from a cup of wine in which they found a fly, others will take the fly out and drink the remainder. A man adhering to a higher standard of cleanliness will insist to keep his bread as separate as women do.. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree⁹?

footnotes: ⁴ According to Maimonides (Bikkurim ⁵ If for some reason she insists on keeping the two loaves strictly separated. ⁶ This may be read as “he”. ⁷ One loaf of white flour, the other one of whole wheat. This is counted as two different kinds. ⁸ According to R. M. Margalit, this now speaks of two men. As R. Meïr notes (Sotah ⁹ What is the status of the bread if the women kneaded their doughs separately but at baking time they decide to have them together? The answer depends on one’s position regarding R. Aqiba’s opinion in Halakhah 3:5.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom¹² makes heave (including ḥallah) unusable and sacrifices impure (Demay 6:6, Notes 138,140). But since the ṭevul yom has been purified, only his immediate touch is damaging, not the touch by an intermediary object. Therefore, if the ṭevul yom touches a loaf of ḥallah, he makes the ḥallah inedible, including everything connected with it. It is now stated that the rules of connection regarding the obligation of ḥallah are not identical with the rules governing an eventual disqualification of the ḥallah taken., [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there¹³ Yom 1:1, dealing with a Cohen who collects ḥallah from several households to carry home in one basket but does not intend to eat the different morsels together.: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there¹⁴ yom touches one piece of ḥallah, that piece is unusable but all the others are unimpaired.: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment¹⁵ Yom 2:5: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed; if a ṭevul yom touched the sediment, the pieces are permitted. If he touched a piece, it and all that clings to it are connected. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says both are connected to one another.” “Sediment” are the remainders of spices, single fibers from the meat, and assorted matrer which usually clings to the sides of the cooking pot. Since any such sediment will be scraped or washed off before the meat is eaten, it is considered separate. congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection¹⁶ they would not be considered one as indicated by the next statement by R. Joḥanan. even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said¹⁷, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

footnotes: ¹² The touch of a ṭevul yom ¹³ Mishnah Ṭevul ¹⁴ If the ṭevul ¹⁵ Mishnah Ṭevul ¹⁶ Separate pieces of sediment on one piece of meat are considered as one; in the case of ḥallah ¹⁷ Chapter 1:8, first paragraph.

Was is left¹⁹ 1:1, combines spelt and wheat, there are only two kinds as far as the rules of ḥallah are concerned and the statement of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri seems to be meaningless.? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.²⁰” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting²¹ the obligation of ḥallah is new and valid. The exemption of the mixed dough is explained in Chapter 3, Note 72., exempt when mixed.

footnotes: ¹⁹ What is left in the statement of the anonymous Tanna that R. Joḥanan ben Nuri could disagree with? It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 (Note 39) that oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail a kind of barley. Since the Mishnah here, in contrast to Mishnah Kilaim ²⁰ In this formulation, the difference bentween the anonymous Tanna and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri is clear but then one has to ask what is the difference between Mishnaiot 1:1 and 4:2. ²¹ Since by Mishnah 1 the doughs of two different owners never were obligated, if one of them increases his dough to 5/4 qab

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or²² heave between them do not combine²³ are both touching an exempt dough (which is either from material intrinsically exempt or from flour exempt because of its status of sanctity) cannot become obligated since the exempt dough acts as a barrier as if it were of iron. But a dough which is not exempt cannot separate, even if it now is no longer subject to ḥallah.. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another³⁸ as noted in the previous Halakhah, it is forbidden to give heave from one year’s harvest for another year’s (Mishnah Terumot 1:5). Everybody agrees that ḥallah must be given from both kinds of grain; the question is only how this has to be done., Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity³⁹ from less than the minimal volume as genuine ḥallah. becomes a leniency.

footnotes: ²² Reading of the Rome ms. and the Constantinople print: או תרומה; this probably is a gloss. ²³ Two loaves made of bread flour each of which is too small to be subject to ḥallah ³⁸ While two doughts together are obligated for ḥallah ³⁹ Of R. Aqiba who treats ḥallah

HALAKHAH: Should one have stated “rice” but not “heave”? If we had stated “rice” but not “heave”, we would have said that rice does not combine because it is not of that kind²⁴, but heave²⁵, which is of that kind, should combine. It is necessary to state “heave.” If we had stated “heave” but not “rice”, we would have said that heave does not combine because it is not dragged in²⁶ dough containing heave flour is exempt from ḥallah (Mishnah 3:2)., but rice, which is dragged in²⁷ if it tastes like bread (Mishnah 3:6)., should combine. It is necessary to state “rice” and “heave”.

footnotes: ²⁴ Rice dough is never subject to ḥallah. ²⁵ Of bread dough. ²⁶ Dema‘ ²⁷ Dough containing rice is subject to ḥallah

“²⁸ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind²⁹ in the Leyden version follows the Tanna of the reformulated statement (Note 19); the Rome ms. reads אינו מצרף “it does not combine”; possibly following the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah 2. combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines³⁰. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine³¹.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated³² is a heave; then R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question is answered in the Mishnah..

footnotes: ²⁸ In different formulation, Tosephta 2:3–4. ²⁹ In the Tosephta, for wheat dough this is restricted to spelt which can combine both with wheat and with barley. The Tosephta follows R. Joḥanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah; the Yerushalmi baraita ³⁰ The two doughs at the two sides are made from last year’s grain harvest, the one in the middle is from this year’s grain; cf. Mishnah 4. ³¹ This is a case of the Mishnah. ³² One could have argued that ḥallah

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed³³ here, that the entire heave is taken from spelt since that combines with both wheat and barley.. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.³⁴ of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt do combine. If he takes heave, he takes from each one separately since one does not give heave from one species for another.” In this version, the rules for ḥallah and heave are different; the discussion shows that this is not the position of the Yerushalmi. It follows that the baraita represents a tradition different from the Tosephta. It is not necessary to assume with Maimonides that the qab here is a larger measure, equal to 5/4 standard qab which causes separate obligations of ḥallah. As R. Eliahu Fulda explains, the barley in the middle is also subject to ḥallah; it is not different from dough of which ḥallah already was taken. Therefore, the obligation of ḥallah exists and has to be satisfied following the rules of heave.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

footnotes: ³³ Tosephta 2:5. There, the reading is: “He takes from the spelt.” The meaning is the same as in the baraita ³⁴ A similar text in Tosephta 2:4: “A qab

Rebbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe³⁶ 27:32; from the verse it is clear that the minimum number of newborn animals subject to tithe is 10. The Mishnah (Bekhorot 9:7) states that animals are close to one another to be counted together for tithes if they are within grazing distance of one another; this is fixed at 16 mil. It is stated that the distance from Kefar Ḥananiah to Sepphoris is 16 mil, from Sepphoris to Kefar Othnai also 16 mil. Tosephta (Bekhorot 7:3) and Babli (Bekhorot 55a) state that there is an obligation of animal tithe if the total number of newborn animals of a single owner in Kefar Ḥananiah, Sepphoris, and Kefar Othnai is at least ten with at least one being at Sepphoris. R. Jonah now asks whether it is sufficient that the owner had animals at Sepphoris which were in the past counted for tithe, similar to the situation described in Mishnah 3.? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Ḥananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that ḥallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find ḥallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice³⁷.

footnotes: ³⁶ Lev. ³⁷ The rule of Mishnah 3 is rabbinic; for animal tithe only biblical standards apply. R. Jonah’s question is answered in the negative.

Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other⁴⁰ Mishnah 2:4.. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other⁴¹ Mishnah 1:5. It follows that the prohibition of the rabbis is rabbinic, not biblical. R. Eliahu Fulda points out that the argument is weak since even R. Ismael requires that ḥallah be taken in such a way that dough from both sides is taken; the difference between him and the rabbis is only whether ḥallah can be taken together or must be taken separately..

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Terumot ⁴¹ This is forbidden, Terumot

Rebbi Aqiba compares it to not fully processed produce; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is heave⁴² 1:10.. But the rabbis compare it to produce not yet one-third ripe; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is not heave⁴³ 1:3, following R. Eleazar.. They had second thoughts and said, it is similar neither to not fully processed produce nor to produce not yet one-third ripe⁴⁴ 1:3.! But Rebbi Aqiba compares it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken, and they were taken; but the rabbis compare it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken⁴⁵ tentatively designated for the case the dough will reach critical size cannot be ḥallah if no obligated dough is available at the time of designation..

footnotes: ⁴² Mishnah Terumot ⁴³ Mishnah Ḥallah ⁴⁴ Since it also must follow the majority opinion in Mishnah Ḥallah ⁴⁵ Everybody agrees that produce tentatively designated as heave cannot be heave if there is nothing it can be given for. Similarly, they will hold that ḥallah

They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards⁴⁶ is subject to biblical ḥallah in everybody’s opinion, R. Aqiba must declare ḥallah from a single qab as biblical ḥallah. In R. Aqiba’s statement, “one qab” must be taken litterally; it is not an expression meaning “less than 5/4 qab” since in Mishnah Idiut 1:2, Shammai is reported to fix the obligation of ḥallah at one qab (and Hillel at 2 qabim). R. Aqiba must hold that any amount which is declared ḥallah in any tradition must be recognized as biblical ḥallah (Maimonides in his Commentary.).

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Since the combined dough of 2 qab

“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis.

MISHNAH: A person may take for ḥallah from a dough prepared in purity and from which ḥallah has not yet been taken, to use it continuously for ḥallah of demay⁴⁷ of demay” is since ḥallah has the status of Great Heave which everybody is supposed to have given. It seems, with R. Simson, that “ḥallah of demay” is ḥallah taken for bread bought from an untrustworthy baker, as described in Mishnah Demay 5:1. According to Maimonides, in his Code and the later version of his Commentary, “ḥallah of demay” refers to any ḥallah whose status as biblical obligation is in doubt. until it decays, since ḥallah of demay may be taken from pure for impure and from what is not earmarked⁴⁸ cannot be combined with the impure for which it is designated. Therefore, the procedure described here is restricted to the case where the heave (i. e., ḥallah) does not have to be earmarked..

footnotes: ⁴⁷ It is not very clear what “ḥallah ⁴⁸ Since dough or bread bought from an untrustworthy person always has the status of ritual impurity, the pure dough set aside for ḥallah

HALAKHAH: What means “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food⁵⁰? Let us hear from the following⁵¹ 9:10: “Rebbi Ḥananiah the Second of the Cohanim says: Heave which is no longer human food but is dog food is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in its place.” Since there is a name attached to this statement, it is implied that the majority will deny that anything which is not human food can become impure in the impurity of food. The Babli (Pesaḥim 15b, 45b) quotes a similar but anonymous baraita. It follows that the Babli decides with R. Ḥananiah the Second of the Cohanim but the Yerushalmi against him. Maimonides (Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14) follows the Yerushalmi, against the protests of R. Abraham ben David.: “If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity⁵².” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ No food prohibitions do apply to anything unfit as dog food. ⁵¹ Another version is in Tosephta Terumot ⁵² One burns it immediately as impure; one does not treat it as suspended as would be required if the status of impurity were in doubt.

This means⁵³ (i. e., heave) for freshly prepared dough. that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots⁵⁴2, Note 63. for carrots at a place where [the leaves] are eaten. This happened with Gamliel the twin who had forgotten to put his carrots in order. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery!

footnotes: ⁵³ The Mishnah which permits using dough close to being spoiled as ḥallah ⁵⁴ Cf. Demay

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe of demay⁵⁵. From the text one may understand that the baraita stated that heave of the tithe of demay follows the same rules as ḥallah for demay dough as spelled out in the Mishnah..” Come and see, since certain heave of the tithe may be taken from pure for impure⁵⁶ 2:5; cf. Terumot 2, Note 9., heave of the tithe of demay not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, we deal with a doubt of Great Heave when it is not sure whether Great Heave was taken or not⁵⁷ implies that Great Heave was taken and only tithes and heave of the tithe are questionable. This supports the interpretation that also in the Mishnah, demay is used in a loose, non-technical way.. As you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it;”⁵⁸ 5:10, Note 144. he asserts that from demay for demay it is the same. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana⁵⁹ said, there⁶⁰ is needed; its contents cannot be derived from the Mishnah here since the heave of the tithe is to be eaten whereas in the Mishnah the dough reserved for ḥallah has to be burned in the end when it becomes inedible. he wants to eat it, here he wants to burn it.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ Quote from an otherwise unknown baraita ⁵⁶ Mishnah Bikkurim ⁵⁷ But in general, the term demay ⁵⁸ Demay ⁵⁹ Also called R. Simeon ben Barsana. ⁶⁰ The baraita

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria⁶¹ 7, Note 119. R. Eliezer holds that the laws of the Holy Land extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially outside the Land and only selected laws of the Land are extended to apply there.; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria⁶² to the Land (Num. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give ḥallah to a Cohen, it was established that some dough should be given to a Cohen. This dough cannot be sanctified, otherwise it would be forbidden to the recipient. but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah⁶³. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah⁸⁵. The Land of Israel⁸⁶ 6:1, Note 3, for the geographic details. up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus⁸⁷ 6:1, “any place held by the immigrants from Egypt,” i. e., the regions North of Akhzib described as tribal territories in the book of Joshua., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure⁸⁸ which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7., the one for the Cohen has no measure⁸⁹ to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.. From Euphrates or Amanus inside⁹⁰ 6:1, Note 3., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure⁹¹ are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of ḥallah even during the First Commonwealth., the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it⁹².. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion⁹³ is no true heave, cf. Berakhot 1, Note 3.. But it⁹⁴ mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body. is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux⁹⁵. 15:1–15, 25–30., and to women during menstruation⁹⁶. 15:19–24. or after childbirth⁹⁷. 12:1–8.. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen⁹⁸. The following may be given to any Cohen¹²²: ḥērem-dedications¹²³ 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a)., firstlings¹²⁴ 13:1, Num. 18:15., the redemption money for a [firstborn] son¹²⁵ 13:1,13, Num. 3:47, 18:15., the redemption value of a firstling donkey¹²⁶ 13:1,13., foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷ 18:3., the first shearing¹²⁸ 18:4., oil to burn¹²⁹, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits¹³⁰ 26:1–11.. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits¹³¹ 2:1.. Heave vetch¹³² Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

footnotes: ⁶¹ The parts of David’s kingdom not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua; cf. Peah ⁶² As explained in Mishnah 8. Biblical law restricts the duty of ḥallah ⁶³ He denies that Syrian soil is impure. ⁸⁵ In the biblical Land of Israel. ⁸⁶ The actual Land of Israel of the Second Commonwealth; cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it ⁸⁷ One has to add, with Mishnah Ševi‘it ⁸⁸ The true ḥallah ⁸⁹ A purely symbolic ḥallah ⁹⁰ The rest of Syria, domain of biblical promise; cf. Ševi‘it ⁹¹ Both ḥallot ⁹² He is forbidden true ḥallah ⁹³ This also shows that the symbolic ḥallah ⁹⁴ The purely symbolic ḥallah ⁹⁵ Lev ⁹⁶ Lev ⁹⁷ Lev ⁹⁸ Even a vulgar who cannot be expected to follow all rules of purity. ¹²² Irrespective of his level of observance and knowledge of the Law. Some of the prescribed gifts are given to priests serving in the Temple; there, they are under supervision and instruction. The other gifts are purely profane; they cannot be impaired by the impurity of the Cohen. ¹²³ Num. ¹²⁴ Ex. ¹²⁵ Ex. ¹²⁶ Ex. ¹²⁷ Deut. ¹²⁸ Deut. ¹²⁹ Impure heave olive oil. ¹³⁰ Deut. ¹³¹ Since they have to follow rules of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim ¹³² This is animal fodder except in times of famine.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants⁶⁴, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi⁶⁵. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him⁶⁶. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ These have acquired the hereditary right to remain tenants; this is a kind of lien on the real estate. ⁶⁵ For 200 years in one family. ⁶⁶ To take away an incentive to leave the Land for more profitable farming in Syria.

“He who buys from a baker in Syria⁶⁷ even in Temple times is only rabbinic in character and the vulgar will not give ḥallah. has to separate ḥallah as demay, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate ḥallah as demay.⁶⁸ whose obligation starts in the house of the Jew follows exactly the laws of the Land.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel said it right, what is the reason of the Sages? He said to him, just as Israel are not suspected in matters of heave in the Land, so they are not suspected in matters of ḥallah⁶⁹ in Syria.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Since Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially a foreign country, he holds that there ḥallah ⁶⁸ Tosephta 2:5. This is part of a longer statement by R. Eleazar ben R. Ẓadoq who explains the position of Rabban Gamliel that the sharecropper is exempt because the grain is processed in the possession of the Gentile but ḥallah ⁶⁹ Whose rules are those of the Great Heave.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you said that there are two ḥallot in Syria, should there not be two heaves⁷⁰ in Syria? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, there comes nothing after ḥallah⁷¹ makes dough and bread totally profane. but after heave there comes something. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates⁷² were ṭevel for tithes!

footnotes: ⁷⁰ The first to be burned and the second to be eaten. ⁷¹ Taking ḥallah ⁷² The second one which cannot be real heave or it would have to be burned.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria⁷³ 1:3 which restricts demay to the Land of Israel. One may assume that in his time the center of Jewish population had moved from Galilee to Syria. but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah⁷⁴ is legitimate only if the dough was made from tithed flour.! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There⁷⁵ 1, Note 172, explaining the statement of the Mishnah that ḥallah of a vulgar is exempt from the laws of demay., he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire⁷⁶. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah⁷⁷! “⁷⁸ ki-Fshutah, p.799. He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay⁷⁹.; from a private person and if he is a guest⁸⁰ 8:15). Hilkhot Tašbeẓ explains: “If one buys from a private person one has to give extra ḥallah except if one is his guest or saw him knead for another person.” he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place⁸¹.. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay⁸² 6:11.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah⁸³ in Syria.? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land⁸⁴ 1:3 deals only with the Land where all vulgars can be trusted to give ḥallah as they give Great Heave., there outside the Land.

footnotes: ⁷³ Against Mishnah Demay ⁷⁴ Since ḥallah ⁷⁵ Demay ⁷⁶ Since it is burned, the vulgar will not worry if heave of the tithe was not given. ⁷⁷ The language of the statement excludes the argument of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya. ⁷⁸ Tosephta 1:8. Cf. Tosefta ⁷⁹ I. e., give heave of the tithe and afterwards ḥallah ⁸⁰ In the Tosephta, “from a private person and his guests.” Even if he is the baker’s guest but eats from the bread the baker makes for himself and his family (R. Abraham ben David). The reading of the Rome ms., וּמתארח אצלו “from a private person and he is his guest” supports Maimonides (Bikkurim ⁸¹ That other people trust him to give their ḥallah ⁸² Since in this case, a field in Syria is subject to tithes; Mishnah Demay ⁸³ Since he denies demay ⁸⁴ Mishnah Demay

⁹⁹ 6:1, Notes 90–95. Rebbi Huna said: So is the Mishnah: “Between Akhzib and Euphrates, between Akhzib and Amanus.” It was stated: What is the Land and what is outside the Land? From the slopes of Taurus Amanus inwards is the Land of Israel³, from Taurus Amanus to the outside is outside the Land. About the islands in the sea, one looks at them as if a string were drawn from Taurus Amanus to the brook of Egypt; from the string to the inside is the Land of Israel, from the string to the outside is outside the Land. Rebbi Jehudah said, all that lies before the Land of Israel is like the Land of Israel since it is said (Num. 34:6): “The Western border shall be for you the Great Sea as border; that shall be for you the sea border.” Assuming that a string were drawn from Cephalaria to the Ocean, from the brook of Egypt to the Ocean; inside the string is the Land of Israel, outside is outside the Land.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ This and the following paragraph are from Ševi‘it ³ This is defined in Mishnah 4:2.

Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, when the people of the Diaspora arrive at Taurus Amanus they will sing. What is the reason? (Cant. 4:8) “Sing from the top of Amanah”.

¹⁰⁰ 55a. There, the first opinion is declared to be that of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, the second that of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra, and the third that of R. Meїr. Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. ¹⁰¹ 8:4, Baba Qama 10:23, Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 22a. The argument there is that a change in the river bed is an act of God against which the property owners are powerless; one may therefore assume that the owners have given up hope to recover their land; the part taken by the river now is ownerless.“If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria¹⁰², it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession¹⁰³, removals¹⁰⁴ 9:2., and animal tithe¹⁰⁵ 55a.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ A similar discussion in Babli Bekhorot ¹⁰¹ Tosephta Ketubot ¹⁰² This is a very unlikely scenario. The Jordan is meandering only between the Land of Israel and Transjordan. ¹⁰³ It is assumed that people do not keep documents for more than three years. Therefore, a person who claims to have legal possession of real estate by sale or inheritance, in the absence of a title can prove his claim by showing undisturbed possession for three years. Such a claim cannot be brought simultaneously for property inside and outside the Land. ¹⁰⁴ The required consumption of Sabbatical produce which varies from region to region, Ševi‘it ¹⁰⁵ This is the topic of Babli Bekhorot

“The one for the fire has a measure,” for it is biblical⁸⁸ which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7.. “The one for the Cohen has no measure,” for it is rabbinical⁸⁹ to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.. Should he give for the fire and not for the Cohen? That they should not say, we saw pure heave being burned¹⁰⁶ shows that the obligation is only rabbinical and it is impure only by rabbinical standards.. Should he give for the Cohen and not for the fire? That they should not say, we saw impure heave being eaten¹⁰⁷. Since he gives both of them, when he comes here¹⁰⁸ are required mainly to make sure that immigrants to the Holy Land inquire about the rules to be followed in the Land., he will ask.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ The true ḥallah ⁸⁹ A purely symbolic ḥallah ¹⁰⁶ The territory of the Land of Israel during the First Commonwealth which was not reoccupied by Jews during the Second Commonwealth is pure by biblical standards, impure only rabbinically. One might have a point considering that heave as pure. The second ḥallah ¹⁰⁷ Since it is impure by actual standards. ¹⁰⁸ The two ḥallot

But both are rabbinical¹⁰⁹ of Syria outside the Promised Land. Since both ḥallot are rabbinical, why is one subject to a minimum amount but not the other.! It is better to increase the one to be eaten, not the one to be burned.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ this now refers to the ḥallah

Even Rebbi Yose¹¹¹ does not need purification of the Cohen by immersion. He agrees with the anonymous Mishnah 9 that persons whose impurity is caused by their bodies are excluded from eating even rabbinic ḥallah. agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone’s body.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ In Mishnah 8, he states that purely rabbinic ḥallah

Rebbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra that it needs a plurality¹¹² from territories never possessed by the tribes of Israel or the returnees from Babylonia, if mixed with profane food, does not create dema‘ if the profane is more than the ḥallah. This is accepted by the Babli for all heave of the Diaspora (Bekhorot 21a). Bostra is a town in Syria just outside the domain settled by the returnees from Babylonia; cf. Demay2, Note 8.. Rebbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101¹¹³, subject of Mishnah 9, does not follow the rules of heave explained in Terumot 9. He is not specific about the amounts needed to annul the rabbinic ḥallah.. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: “It may be eaten at one table with a layman¹¹⁴ never creates dema‘ since mixing the ḥallah with profane food cannot usually be avoided if both are on the same table. The name tradition is confirmed by all written sources but it seems to be impossible. Either “R. Jonah” is incorrect since R. Jonah was a student of R. Zeïra’s student R. Jeremiah and R. Zeïra cannot conduct a polemic against his opinion, or instead of “R. Zeïra” one has to read “R. Yose”.”.

footnotes: ¹¹² The ḥallah ¹¹³ The rabbinic ḥallah ¹¹⁴ He disagrees with both R. Abbahu and R. Jonah and holds that foreign ḥallah

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora¹¹⁵ used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters¹¹⁶.rabba 51(12) a R. Hoshaia the Interpreter and in 65(6) a Ḥizqiahu the Interpreter are mentioned. The time of the first cannot be determined; the second must be later than R. Berekhiah of the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm. The Babli does not mention any change of practice.. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates¹¹⁷ and declare the remainder as ḥallah or heave. This is quoted in the name of Samuel, as practice, by the Babli (Beẓah 9a, Bekhorot 27a).. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave¹¹⁸, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical¹¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ In Babylonia. ¹¹⁶ Those who explain difficult passages. Their identity is unknown. In Gen ¹¹⁷ One may eat from what in the Land would be ṭevel ¹¹⁸ In Babylonia they only gave Great Heave for grain, wine, and olive oil, but no tithes. This is confirmed by the fact that tithes from outside the Land (including Transjordan and Syria) are never mentioned in either Talmud. ¹¹⁹ Even in the Land there is no biblical obligation for any produce other than grain, wine, and olive oil. Therefore, outside the Land there is no reason to observe heaves and tithes even as a remembrance of the Land.

It was stated¹²⁰ 67a) reads: Concerning a Gentile’s ḥallah in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that he is not obligated, the ḥallah may be eaten by outsiders and the heave does not create dema‘. The Gentile is a “Friend of the Synagogue”, as they are frequently mentioned as donors in Synagogue inscriptions in the Diaspora. Since R. Meїr holds that possession of real estate by a Gentile in the Land does not free his property from the duties of heave and tithes (even though this is not practice to be followed), a Gentile’s heave in the Land is heave.: “Concerning a Gentile’s ḥallah in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that it is unnecessary, he might eat it¹²¹, and it may be given to any Cohen, be he Fellow or vulgar.”

footnotes: ¹²⁰ The Babylonian version (Tosephta 2:6, Babli Menaḥot ¹²¹ Since he dedicated it in error, the dedication is invalid and he may retract it. But if he insists on giving, it must be given to a Cohen. One must assume that in this case also, the heave is forbidden to a Cohen whose body is a source of impurity.

Some of them¹³⁴ are given to the people of the watch¹³⁵; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings¹³⁶ and First Fruits¹³⁷ to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications¹²³ 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a). are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen¹³⁸ 88a, Arakhin 28a..” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?)¹³⁹ But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch¹⁴⁰ 18:3 clearly speaks about profane slaughter, away from the Temple, the meaning of the word must include any Cohen. The Babli (Arakhin 28b) disagrees and compares “Cohen” in this verse, about which it is written (v. 16) “If … a man declares holy for the Eternal” to the Cohen mentioned in the law about the repentant offender in case the person he injured or defrauded has died heirless, where it is written: (*Num.*5:6) “The money must be returned to the Eternal for the Cohen”. The latter money is distributed among the people of the current watch.? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch¹⁴¹, so ḥērem- dedications are for the people of the watch!

footnotes: ¹³⁴ The items listed in the Mishnah. ¹³⁵ The families of certified Cohanim, admitted to service in the Temple, were divided into 24 sections, each of which was the watch serving in the Temple for one week. Except for the High Priest, no Cohen had the right to officiate in the Temple except during holidays and the week assigned to his watch. ¹³⁶ Unblemished firstlings which are a sacrifice of which the owners receive no part. Blemished firstlings, unfit for sacrifice, may be given to any Cohen locally. ¹³⁷ Have to be delivered to the Cohen in the Temple. ¹²³ Num. ¹³⁸ Since the chapter deals with transactions by the Temple treasurer, it follows that a specially dedicated field has to be given by the treasurer to the Cohen officiating in the Temple, i. e., to the watch of the week. The same argument in Babli Sanhedrin ¹³⁹ A dittography in both mss.; it must be an old error. ¹⁴⁰ If “Cohen” in the first verse means “Cohen of the current watch” then in the second verse it should have the same meaning. But since Deut. ¹⁴¹ All most holy sacrifices are either totally burned or eaten by Cohanim only.

If this is the case, also movables¹⁴²27:28 cannot be true because ḥerem- dedicated movables may be given to any Cohen but are also called “most holy” in the verse.? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables¹⁴³-dedications.? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: (Deut. 18:1) “The gifts¹⁴⁴ to the Eternal and His inheritance¹⁴⁵ they shall eat.” Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance.

footnotes: ¹⁴² The argument based on Lev. ¹⁴³ Referring to ḥerem ¹⁴⁴ Sacrifices. ¹⁴⁵ The term נחלה is used only for real estate; usually only for what was given the family under Joshua.

¹⁴⁶ 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷ 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸ 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹ 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰, the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵² 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³ 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴ 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷, First Fruits¹⁵⁸ 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹ 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰ 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷ 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹ 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶² 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³ 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³ 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴ 27:16–21..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ Tosephta Ḥallah ¹⁴⁷ Lev. ¹⁴⁸ Lev. ¹⁴⁹ Lev. ¹⁵⁰ While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten. ¹⁵¹ Lev ¹⁵² Lev ¹⁵³ Lev. ¹⁵⁴ Lev. ¹⁵⁵ Lev ¹⁵⁶ Lev ¹⁵⁷ While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city. ¹⁵⁸ Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim ¹⁵⁹ In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. ¹⁶⁰ Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. ¹²⁷ Deut. ¹⁶¹ Deut. ¹⁶² Num. ¹⁶³ Ex. ¹⁶³ Ex. ¹⁶⁴ Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev.

“Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits.” Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since¹⁶⁵ 3:12. The anonymous majority requires them to be given to the people of the watch who have to eat them under the rules of simple sacrifices. “Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill.”

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ Mishnah Bikkurim

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Aqiba¹⁶⁶ follows his own opinion since “Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity”¹⁶⁷ 2:4.. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say that he changed his method; there is a difference because a person usually does not make his animal’s fodder impure¹⁶⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ In the Mishnah. ¹⁶⁷ Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni ¹⁶⁸ Even if he agrees with the House of Hillel that Second Tithe vetch (in a famine) must be cooked in purity, he holds that vetch in a regular year is only animal fodder, is never soaked, never prepared for impurity, and may be handled by any impure person without consequences.

Why did they not decree about vicia¹⁶⁹ 5, Note 136)?? On their shoes it came out with them from Alexandria¹⁷⁰. When did they decree about black vetch¹⁷¹ cf. H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 458b.? Rebbi Yose says, in a famine; Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi: In David’s time. They said, both are the same.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ Why was vetch not included originally in the duty to give heave and tithes from vegetables (cf. Ma‘serot ¹⁷⁰ In Egypt it is simply a weed. ¹⁷¹ Which is a kind of vicia;

MISHNAH: Nittai from Tekoa brought ḥallot from Baithur¹⁷² but they did not accept from him¹⁷³. The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them¹⁷⁴ 11:34, 1S. 13:18), West of Jerusalem.. The people from Hyena Mountain¹⁷⁵ brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest¹⁷⁶ 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331)., the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.” Ben-Atitas¹⁷⁶ 21a Ben Antigonos (Venice print), Ben Eutitas (Responsa R. Salomon ben Adrat vol. 1, #331). brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them¹⁷⁷ on Deut. 14:23 (#106); Babli Bekhorot 53a].. Joseph the Cohen¹⁷⁸ 10:1 and several baraitot in the Babli. brought his First Fruits as wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household¹⁷⁹ sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar if they were unable to bring it on the 14th of Nisan, since it is a positive obligation due at a fixed time. It seems that Joseph the Cohen was sufficiently known for the Temple authorities to be afraid that his example would be imitated and in the end create a baseless obligation. to make the second Passover in Jerusalem but they turned him back so as not to create a precedent for the future. Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them for they said, he who buys in Syria is like him who buys in the suburbs of Jerusalem¹⁸⁰ 6:11..

footnotes: ¹⁷² This place has not been convincingly identified. Possibly it is the place of origin of the family Ben Bathyra, the leading rabbinical authorities in the region of Nisibis on the upper Tigris during the centuries of the Mishnaic period. ¹⁷³ Since it is impure by coming from outside the Land, the rabbinic authorities of the day forbade any Cohen to accept it. ¹⁷⁴ Probably near the place צבעים (Neh. ¹⁷⁵ Pentecost. ¹⁷⁶ In the quote Babli Temura ¹⁷⁶ In the quote Babli Temura ¹⁷⁷ In the Temple, since firstlings can only be brought from places from which heave and tithes are obligatory [Sifry ¹⁷⁸ A Tanna of the Temple period, mentioned in Mishnah Miqwa’ot ¹⁷⁹ Women, slaves, and minor children who are exempt from bringing the Pesaḥ ¹⁸⁰ Cf. Mishnah Demay

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁸² which was rejected by the authorities advising the Cohanim. stated: They decided about these and turned them back to their places of origin. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this is impossible. One may not eat it lest people say we saw impure heave being eaten. One may not burn it lest people say we saw pure heave¹⁸³ is impure as foreign produce, it did not become impure in the Land and people will not know that it was imported. being burned. One may not return it to its place of origin lest people say we saw heave being exported from the Land. What to do? He lets it lie until Passover eve¹⁸⁴. and burns it.

footnotes: ¹⁸² This is R. Ḥiyya the elder. The discussion is about the foreign ḥallah ¹⁸³ While the heave/ḥallah ¹⁸⁴ When all leavened matter, including heave, must be burned. Nobody will notice the special status of this ḥallah

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I saw Simeon ben Cahana drinking heave wine in Acco¹⁸⁵ 6:1, Note 30).. When he said, this was brought from Cilicia, they decided about him and he drank it on a ship. Would not people say that one imports heave from outside into the Land? Let us say, he did not go into Acco¹⁸⁶. Where did he drink it? Outside the string¹⁸⁷ or inside? Let us say, outside the string¹⁸⁸. Rebbi Jonah said, even if you say inside the string, they did not worry about bad appearances on a ship.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ This in itself is problematic since part of Acco belongs to the Land, part to Syria (cf. Ševi‘it ¹⁸⁶ Since “they decided”, the rabbinical authorities of Acco must have been asked about the situation. It is reasonable to assume that the question was asked before the wine was unloaded. ¹⁸⁷ The imaginary line defining the territorial waters of the Land; cf. above, Note 99. ¹⁸⁸ This is unlikely since the ship would have had to leave port and go far out to sea.

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. ¹⁸⁹ 3:2, Notes 52–56. Taking somebody else’s property is not a crime as long as the value of the thing taken is less than the smallest coin in circulation. Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ From Demay

“The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, is that not also from Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder¹⁹⁰? He holds that they decided about these and ordered them to be returned.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Does R. Ḥiyya (Note 182) simply state a ruling of the Sages of the day in the case of Nittai or does he express a generally valid halakhic statement?

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” ¹⁹¹ There¹⁹² 11:3. The text of the discussion is also from there, Notes 62–65. The Mishnah states: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for grapes and olives.” This text is implied in the discussion here., we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’ ”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose¹⁹³.

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ The discussion is not about the quote from the Mishnah but about Joseph the Cohen who brought his First Fruits as wine and oil. ¹⁹² Terumot ¹⁹³ But fruits other than grapes and olives may not be made into juice under any circumstances.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary¹⁹⁴ for his entire family. The same discussion in Pesaḥim 8:1 (fol. 35d), Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c); cf. Babli Pesaḥim 93a, Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba 3, Mekhilta R. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 10.? It was stated¹⁹⁵ 8:10. There, the opinion of R. Meïr is attributed to R. Jehudah.: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others¹⁹⁶, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath¹⁹⁷, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house¹⁹⁸.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor¹⁹⁹. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation²⁰⁰ 93a quotes a Tosephta which includes women impure because of childbirth in the list of persons obligated to observe the Second Pesaḥ.. Did we not hold²⁰¹ 10:6, Babli Menaḥot 69a, speaking of First Fruits. There seems to be no reason why the people from Hyena Mountain should not be permitted to bring their first fruits early. The answer is, they would have been permitted had some of them come as individuals. But that the people from an entire region should come publicly to do what is only tolerated is unacceptable.: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state²⁰² 3:5. Why should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to bring his firstlings?: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ That they refused to let Joseph the Cohen bring the Second Pesaḥ ¹⁹⁵ Tosephta Pesaḥim ¹⁹⁶ Joining a group of men who are biblically obligated; cf. Note 177. ¹⁹⁷ If the 14th of Iyar is a Sabbath, the sacrifice has precedence over the Sabbath. ¹⁹⁸ Everywhere in rabbinic Hebrew, “house” of a family is the wife. ¹⁹⁹ In the Tosephta (Note 195) the reason they turned back Joseph the Cohen was not that he brought his wife and children but his minor grandson. In that version, there is no place for disagreement or special situation. ²⁰⁰ If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion. The Babli Pesaḥim ²⁰¹ Mishnah Menaḥot ²⁰² Mishnah Temurah

“Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them.” There²⁰³ 6:6. The discussion is there, Note 152., we have stated: “One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land.” Should they be brought as First Fruits? Rebbi Hoshaia said, First Fruits are the responsibility of the owners, heave is not the responsibility of the owners. If you would say so, they would run after it there²⁰⁴.

footnotes: ²⁰³ Ševi‘it ²⁰⁴ Therefore, the rabbinic prohibition for heave from Syria is reasonable; there is no reason to prohibit First Fruits from Syria which must personally be delivered to the Temple.