MISHNAH: If somebody¹. A trustworthy person will not give away anything not fully tithed. passed by the market place and said: “take some figs²,” one may eat without tithing³. Therefore, if they brought to their houses, they must put in order as certain produce. “Take some figs and bring them home,” one should not eat them as a snack⁴.. Therefore, if they brought to their houses, they have to put in order only as demay. If they were sitting in a gate or in a store and he⁴⁹ said, take some figs, they may eat and are free, but the owners of the gate or the store are obligated⁵⁰. Rebbi Jehudah frees them⁵¹ unless they turn their faces away or change their places⁵².

footnotes: ¹ A person not certified as trustworthy or a Fellow, see the Introduction to Demay ² As is a gift, cf. Note 5. ³ Since he offers single figs, we assume that they are freshly harvested and never were near the offerer’s house. Therefore, they are not yet under the obligation of heave and tithes. When they become obligated upon being brought to the recipient’s house, they must be treated as fully untithed. ⁴ If the vulgar offers figs as fully tithed, one has to assume that only heave was given but not tithes as explained in Tractate Demay ⁴⁹ The person of Mishnah 1 who is giving away figs. ⁵⁰ Since for them “the figs see the house” and, therefore, are subject to heave and tithes. ⁵¹ Since one is not supposed to be eating in public, he defines the house which induces the duty of tithes as a place in which the owner can eat without embarassment. ⁵² In order to eat in privacy.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, this is Rebbi Meїr’s opinion since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale⁵1:1 to hold that, while a gift is only valid if it were valid also as a sale, a gift does not induce the obligations of heave and tithes.. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody. This was asked of those from Rebbi Yannai’s house and they said, we used to give to one another in the fields and ate without putting in order⁶. How can this be? Following him who held that they accepted tithes voluntarily⁷ 6:1, Notes 11–13..

footnotes: ⁵ It is stated in Halakhah 4:1 that produce which would become obligated when brought to storage also becomes obligated if it is sold on the field; the buyer may not eat a snack without giving heave and tithes. In general, we hold that the formal rules of transfer of property by a gift are the same as by sale in all respects. R. Meїr is quoted here and in Ma‘ser Šeni ⁶ Since practice follows the Mishnah, the Mishnah cannot describe a minority opinion. R. Yose is proven correct. ⁷ Following R. Eleazar, Ševi‘it

Our Mishnah⁸ [deals with] the case that most people bring to their houses but in case most people bring directly to market one has to put in order only as demay. If we were dealing with the case that most people bring to their houses⁹, is that not what we have stated¹⁰: “ ‘Take some figs and bring them home,’ one should not eat them as a snack?” Since he said, “take some figs and bring them home,” it is as if he said, “take, I am taking care of the tithes for you¹¹..” But if most people bring directly to market he is not trusted if he says to somebody, I did tithe, nor is he trusted if he says to him, I am bringing mine to my house¹², not as certain as required by the Mishnah..

footnotes: ⁸ This refers to the first part of the Mishnah. If the farmer is a Fellow and he brings his figs directly to market he has to tithe (by the rules of fellowship) so that the vulgar who buys from him will not become guilty when he takes the figs home. Therefore, if the seller is not trustworthy, he still can be assumed to have given heave even if the figs never got near the house since collecting the figs is the last act of harvest, comparable to threshing for grains. ⁹ Before going to market. Then the fruits are subject to heave and tithes by biblical standards. ¹⁰ The second part of the Mishnah. Therefore, the first part cannot refer to the same case. ¹¹ Since the giver is not trustworthy, the recipient still has to treat the gift as demay ¹² If he were trustworthy, in the first case one would also require tithing only as demay

If he gave much, even if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store¹³. If he gave him anything that usually is not eaten raw, even if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If [the recipient] was an important personality who does not usually eat in public, if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If there were two people; to one he said, take and eat; to the other he said, take and store. The one to whom he said, take and eat, is free¹⁴; the one to whom he said, take and store, is obligated¹⁵. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah (2:2): “They eat and are free but the owners of the gate or the store are obligated?¹⁶” Rebbi Jonah said, it is everybody’s opinion¹⁷. R. Yose’s argument is invalid; the rules must be spelled out and cannot be inferred from the Mishnah.; here for demay, there for certain.

footnotes: ¹³ Even if he uses the language specified in the Mishnah for the first case, the rule to be followed is that of the second case if a typical person will not be able to eat all of it on the spot. Similar arguments hold for the next two cases. ¹⁴ The first case of the Mishnah. ¹⁵ The second case. ¹⁶ If a passer-by gives fruits to a group of people gossiping at a place where the owner’s own produce would become obligated, the visitors may eat them as a snack but not the owners. R. Jehudah also permits the owners to eat as long as they stay in the group. He must disagree with the rules just given. ¹⁷ Mishnah 2 speaks of untithed fruits, Mishnah 1 of demay

¹⁸“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree and I will eat my fill from yours,’ he who eats his fill is free¹⁹ and he who eats a fixed number is obligated²⁰.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Can a person not eat one by one with permission and be free? He said to him, yes. Then why is he obligated here? He said to him, when he takes them together²¹. If he takes them together, even he who eats his fill should be obligated²²! Is he not forbidden because of barter²³? Rebbi Shammai said, there is no barter since this man only wanted to make him hungry that he should eat²⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁸ Tosephta 2:6. ¹⁹ He eats as a snack, untithed. ²⁰ The fixed number makes it a business deal for which the fruits have to be tithed. ²¹ If he first collects 20 figs and then eats them, he must tithe first. If he eats every fig before he picks the next one, it is a snack and needs no tithing. ²² If the answer stands, the Tosephta is misleading. It should say, he who eats while collecting is free but he who collects and then eats is obligated. ²³ There is no difference whether one picks and then eats or eats while picking. The person who gets 20 figs gets them by barter and has to tithe in any case; the question of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya seems irrelevant. ²⁴ 20 figs to eat in one sitting is a large amount. The person who wants to eat his fill is afraid the other person, who probably is poor, would not eat enough. So he induces him to eat a large quantity; there are two snacks and no barter. The objection of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is supported; the Tosephta cannot represent practice.

²⁵ 32a.“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats as usual and is free²⁶.” The Yerushalmi does not deal with the problem; the baraita simply states that he “is free” to eat an untithed snack.. ‘Go and fill a basket,’ he should not eat before tithing²⁷”; since the giver specifies a measure he might have given tithes for his gift from another batch. Here R. Ḥananel reads: “tithes as certainly untithed.” The Yerushalmi does not deal with the problem: According to Mishnah 1:5, a filled basket subjects all figs in it to heave and tithes. It is clear that then the figs cannot be eaten untithed. But the status of the tithing, whether demay or certain, is not determined.. When has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he can eat and does not have to tithe, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he has to put it in order as certainly untithed since Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked²⁸ 4:3, Note 21; 2:1, Notes 3,6.. Rebbi said, I prefer my words to those of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel²⁹. It is preferable that they should tithe what is not earmarked³⁰ than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar³¹ 3:8, Note 135, Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:1; Babli Baba Qama 69a..” Rebbi Zeїra said, from both their opinions [it follows that] even a Fellow who sends to another Fellow must tithe³² 2:2, Note 125 (R. Zeїra in the name of R. Joḥanan). In Halakhah 5:1, the rule is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.. They ventured to say, he who said that Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked, when somebody is a Fellow he has to tithe³³ 3:3, Notes 79 ff.. And he who said, it is better to tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar, if he is a Fellow he has to tithe³⁴.. Rebbi Jonah asked: Here you declare him to be a Fellow, there you declare him to be a vulgar³⁵. On the other hand, he is treated as a vulgar in Rebbi’s argument.. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases, he is a vulgar. But because of the rare one who puts in order he is called a Fellow³⁶.

footnotes: ²⁵ Tosephta 2:5, Babli Eruvin ²⁶ In the Tosephta and Babli (printed editions and Munich ms.): “He may eat a snack and tithes as certainly untithed.” But R. Ḥananel reads in the Babli: “He may eat a snack and tithes as demay ²⁷ In the Tosephta and Babli: He may eat a snack and tithes as demay ²⁸ See Terumot ²⁹ This is the formulation of the editor. Rebbi would have said “my father”. ³⁰ Transgressing a positive biblical injunction. ³¹ Committing the grave sin of “putting a stone in the path of a blind man.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that the just should never sin to save the wicked; this is his position everywhere, cf. Demay ³² See Demay ³³ The recipient has to tithe as certainly untithed if circumstances indicate that the produce could not have been tithed by the giver, as in the case here since the figs collected in the recipient’s basket could not have been delineated by the giver; cf. Demay ³⁴ The giver has to tithe by the rule of Rebbi; the recipient has to tithe by the rules of demay ³⁵ The recipient is treated as a Fellow since he is required to tithe demay ³⁶ If somebody is not a Fellow, he nevertheless may not be a vulgar in the legal sense of the word.

³⁹ 3, fol. 20d. Rebbi Yose⁴⁰ 32a that one always may trust an agent to fulfill the duties of his agency. This is rejected here. The older R. Yose ben Ḥanina is not likely to quote from the younger Rav Sheshet. in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abin: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. There⁴¹ 3:3. For the notion of eruv, cf. Peah 8, Note 56., we have stated: “If he put it in a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv, lower than ten hand-breadths it is an eruv.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him⁴² sent through an insane, a deaf and dumb, or a minor is invalid. If the eruv will be delivered to a competent person, it is valid.” In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, the two Mishnaiot belong together; the person who puts the eruv into a tree at the border of the Sabbath domain is an agent of the person who intends to use the eruv. The latter has to check that the agent executed the terms of his agency.. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, make an eruv for me! But here, he says I shall tithe for you⁴³. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall make an eruv for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.

footnotes: ³⁹ The paragraph has a parallel in Eruvin ⁴⁰ This must be R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina since R. Eleazar quotes in his name. No Rebbi Sheshet is known from another source; Rav Sheshet holds in Babli Eruvin ⁴¹ Mishnah Eruvin ⁴² The previous Mishnah states: “An eruv ⁴³ The initiative is the agent’s, not the beneficiary’s.

“ ‘²⁵ 32a. Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats one after the other and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket.’ ” Rebbi says, I say that he has to show him the basket⁴⁴. What is the measure of a basket? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan⁴⁵: A standard basket is four qab, a large one a seah, a small one three qab⁴⁶, an average one ≥ three qab, a small one ≥ two qab. For the volumes of seah and qab, cf. Peah 3:7, Note 108.. Rebbi Jonah asked: Has this been said for tithes or for contract law⁴⁷? If you say for tithes⁴⁸, then certainly also for contracts. If for contracts, then not for tithes. It was obvious to Rebbi Yose that this was said for tithes, and certainly also for contracts.

footnotes: ²⁵ Tosephta 2:5, Babli Eruvin ⁴⁴ He follows the Tosephta and disagrees with the Amoraїm who fix standard sizes of baskets. ⁴⁵ In the Rome ms: R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yehoẓadaq. ⁴⁶ In Tosephta 2:7, a large basket is ≥ a seah ⁴⁷ If the seller contracts to deliver a basket of a commodity, is he bound to deliver the standard volume even if this is not specified in the contract? The question is impossible for the Tannaïm who specify only minimal sizes; for them, the measures must refer to tithes. ⁴⁸ For Rebbi, it gives the donor an indication which quantity to tithe for his gift to be collected.

That means⁵³ that the house creates ṭevel for its owner but not for others. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing as we have stated⁵⁴: “Rebbi Neḥemiah says, every [courtyard] in which a person is not ashamed to eat obligates.” Rebbi Yose said, we thought that Rebbi Neḥemiah and the other rabbis disagree about a courtyard in which he would be ashamed to eat anywhere. That means, not one in which he would be ashamed at some place but not at another. Since Rebbi Eleazar said Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing, this implies that a place where he would be ashamed is free and one where he would not be ashamed is obligated.

footnotes: ⁵³ The opinion of the anonymous majority. ⁵⁴ Mishnah 3:5, reporting the opinions of various rabbis about the definition of a courtyard which induces the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Jehudah also is quoted in this Mishnah in a statement which does not necessarily conflict with R. Eleazar’s opinion.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah implies that they made it like a branch hanging into the courtyard⁵⁵. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he eats single ones, eats in a public place, and leaves some remainder. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, even if he does not eat single ones, even if he does not eat in a public place and leaves no remainder⁵⁶.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ As long as the fruits hang on the branch, they are not obligated. Once harvested, they become immediately obligated unless they are eaten as snack singly (Note 21), in a place free according to Rebbis Jehudah and Neḥemiah, and before the harvest is completed, i. e., while some fruits remain on the branch. ⁵⁶ The character of the courtyard alone determines the obligation.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat⁵⁶ until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey⁵⁷. Rebbi Meїr says, until he reaches the place where he stays for the Sabbath⁵⁸. Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat⁵⁶ until they come to the place where they will stay for the night. Rebbi Jehudah says, the first house⁵⁹ is his house.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ The character of the courtyard alone determines the obligation. ⁵⁷ Untithed fruits collected just before his departure. ⁵⁸ Since no untithed fruit may be eaten on the Sabbath; see below and Mishnah 3:2. ⁵⁶ The character of the courtyard alone determines the obligation. ⁵⁹ In the village where he wants to stay overnight.

HALAKHAH: When fruits were collected not for use on the Sabbath and the Sabbath started, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Sabbath does not make it ṭevel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say the Sabbath makes it ṭevel, did we not state: “If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey?” We stated about this: Even if he stayed overnight, even if he stayed over the Sabbath! He said to him, when he wants to stay for the Sabbath⁶⁰ if he stays by choice, not by necessity. If he stays over Sabbath at one place during a trip, it is not creating ṭevel, if he stays in one place on a vacation or for work, his room becomes his house and induces ṭevel. In the Babli, Beẓah 35a, R. Joḥanan restricts this to produce fully processed.. You should know that this is so since we have stated about this: “Even if he stayed for the Sabbath on Monday⁶¹.” Can you have the Sabbath on a Monday? It must be that he wants to stay for the Sabbath; here also if he wants to stay for the Sabbath.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The Sabbath causes ṭevel ⁶¹ In Tosephta 2:1, the formulation is: “R. Meїr says, if he arrives at the place of his choice for the Sabbath he must tithe even if it is a Monday.”

Everybody agrees that staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. What is the difference between staying overnight and staying during the Sabbath? A person happens to stay overnight⁶², nobody happens to stay during the Sabbath. A person will stay anywhere overnight, nobody stays everywhere during the Sabbath⁶³.

footnotes: ⁶² For this meaning of the root גלגל, cf. H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s Dictionary, vol. I, p. 434, referring to p. 329a. ⁶³ Since the choice for staying over the Sabbath is deliberate, that place takes the quality of home.

It was stated⁶⁴ 3:1, Note 5.: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Bene Ḥayil⁶⁵, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if we stay overnight⁶⁶, we are obligated to tithe; otherwise, we are not obligated to tithe.” Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Joshua insists on cleanliness⁶⁷. Rebbi Mana said to him, are all others insane⁶⁸? But Rebbi Joshua, who frequently was attended to⁶⁹, says that staying overnight induces ṭevel. For all others, who are not frequently attended to, staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. But did we not state: “Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat⁵⁶ until they come to the place where they will stay for the night.” Where is their overnight stay? In their house! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Like those of Kefar Ḥanina⁷⁰ 9.2, Note 40. who go out, trade in four or five villages, return, and sleep in their houses.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Tosefta 2:1, Demai ⁶⁵ In the other sources, the place of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is Beror Ḥayil. ⁶⁶ Reading לנו as contracted from לנין אנו found in the other sources. The Tosephta seems to contradict the Mishnah. ⁶⁷ He will stay only in a clean room. Therefore, for him staying overnight is comparable to staying during the Sabbath and counted as if he stayed in his own house. ⁶⁸ To want to stay in dirty, unhealthy surroundings. ⁶⁹ He was so famous that people prepared his lodgings specially for him; the lodgings could be considered his personally. ⁵⁶ The character of the courtyard alone determines the obligation. ⁷⁰ Cf. Ševi‘it

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: A person wants to unload his wares in the first house he encounters and stay overnight there⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁷¹ This is an attempt at explaining the position of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah, that a traveler is obligated from the moment he arrives at the first house of the place in which he intends to stay overnight.

MISHNAH: Fruits from which he gave heave before they were completely processed⁷², Rebbi Eliezer prohibits to eat snacks from them⁷³ but the Sages permit it except for harvesting-baskets of figs⁷⁴. Rebbi Simeon permits from a harvesting-basket of figs from which heave was taken but the Sages forbid. If somebody says to another person, here take this as⁹⁵ and give me five figs for it, he should not eat before he tithed, the words of Rebbi Meir⁹⁶; cf. Note 5.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he eats them singly he is free, if he takes them together⁹⁷ he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah said, there is a story that a rose garden was in Jerusalem whose figs were sold three or four for an as and nobody ever gave heave and tithes for them⁹⁸.

footnotes: ⁷² As explained in Chapter 1, Mishnaiot 2 ff. ⁷³ He holds that once heave was given, tithes also must be given even though the obligation of heave and tithes never starts before the end of processing. ⁷⁴ Most figs are harvested for processing into fig cakes and dried figs. But, as the preceding two Mishnaiot show, some figs are used or sold directly from the basket used when harvesting the figs. ⁹⁵ A Roman coin, one twenty-fourth of a denar. ⁹⁶ Since a sale induces ṭevel ⁹⁷ If he holds at least two figs simultaneously; cf. Note 21. ⁹⁸ They were only used as single snacks.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If about a harvesting-basket of figs, everybody agrees that it is forbidden⁷⁵. If about oil olives and wine grapes, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing⁷⁶, dried figs intended for pressing⁷⁷. Rebbi Eliezer says, heave creates ṭevel⁷⁸ refers only to tithes and the heave of the tithe contained in the First Tithe. of fruits not completely processed but the Sages say, heave does not create ṭevel of fruits not completely processed.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ In the discussion between the Sages and R. Eliezer, disregarding the opinion of R. Simeon. ⁷⁶ Into date cakes. ⁷⁷ Into fig cakes. Tosephta 2:2 explicitly states that the disagreement between R. Eliezer and the Sages refers to these cases only. That Tosephta cannot have been the basis of the Yerushalmi. ⁷⁸ Since heave was already given, this ṭevel

Can First Tithe induce ṭevel⁷⁹? Where do we hold? If about a grain heap that was smoothed, everybody holds that it is forbidden. If First Tithe was given from ears, everybody agrees⁸⁰. 15:20; 18:27,30) or “from flour” (Deut. 12:17, 14:23, 18:4). By biblical decree, nothing preceding the threshing may induce ṭevel. Similarly, the obligations on the grape and olive harvests are referred to as heave of “cider and oil” (Deut. 12:17, 14:23, 18:4). that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing⁷⁶, large figs intended for pounding⁷⁷, of which he gave the Great Heave and then changed his mind to store them as they were. Then he transgressed⁸¹ and gave First Tithe. If you say that ṭevel was created retroactively, the heave induces ṭevel. If you say that ṭevel is created from there onwards, the First Tithe induces ṭevel.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ For Second Tithe or the tithe of the poor, depending on the year in the Sabbatical cycle. ⁸⁰ Tosephta 2:2: “R. Eliezer concedes to the Sages that if somebody gave heave from ears but intends to thresh the grain, from grapes but intends to make wine, from olives but intends to make oil, he can eat snacks from them.” The reason is that heave and tithes of grain are always referred to as “from the threshing floor” (Num ⁷⁶ Into date cakes. ⁷⁷ Into fig cakes. Tosephta 2:2 explicitly states that the disagreement between R. Eliezer and the Sages refers to these cases only. That Tosephta cannot have been the basis of the Yerushalmi. ⁸¹ Since he gave heave when it was not due, he should first give heave when it is due before giving First Tithe.

“⁸² If somebody buys dates to press them, dried figs to pound them, he may not eat a snack from them and must tithe as demay, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, he may eat a snack from them and must give tithes as certain, the words of Rebbi Yose⁸³ in the name of R. Yose. Since R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) determines practice, there is no difference in fact between Tosephta and baraita..” Rebbi Hilai, Rebbi Lazar in the name of Hilfai; Rebbi Jonah said, it was found on the writing tablet of Hilfai⁸⁴: He may eat a snack from them and gives tithes as certain⁸⁵. However, the text requires that one read “tithes as demay”.. This is difficult! If he may eat a snack from them⁸⁶, he should give certain tithes. If he tithes as demay⁸⁷, he should be forbidden to eat them as a snack! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: He may eat them as snack because their processing is not finished⁸⁸; he gives certain tithes⁸⁵. However, the text requires that one read “tithes as demay”. since he [the seller]⁸⁹ because this is a biblical commandment. He does not know the requirement that the processing has to be finished since that is only a rabbinic interpretation of the verse. knows that his house induces ṭevel, he will separate heave from the start.

footnotes: ⁸² Tosephta 2:3., reading of the Erfurt ms. ⁸³ The last clause is missing in the Tosephta. The text here seems to be the conflation of a Tosephta in the name of the Sages and a baraita ⁸⁴ Two different opinions on the chain of transmission, whether oral or written. ⁸⁵ This is the reading in both mss. and the editio princeps ⁸⁶ This implies that the fruits are not yet processed; the obligation of tithes has not yet started and, therefore, the seller could not have given heave and tithes. ⁸⁷ The seller certainly gave heave; the buyer may not eat from the produce before separating the heave of the tithe. ⁸⁸ The obligation of heave did not start yet. ⁸⁵ This is the reading in both mss. and the editio princeps ⁸⁹ The vulgar seller knows that the house induces ṭevel

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah⁹⁰ deals with any harvesting-basket⁹¹. ⁹²“Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes⁹³, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.⁹⁴ for any produce whose processing was completed outside the farmhouse as long as the farmer intends to bring the produce to the house for storage.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ The statement of R. Simeon in the last sentence of the Mishnah. ⁹¹ Not only of figs. ⁹² Tosephta 2:2; instead of the Yerushalmi stereotype לא כל שכן the Tosephta has the Babylonian .דין הוא ⁹³ Great Heave, First and Second Tithes. ⁹⁴ For him, heave does not create ṭevel

Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They disagree if he gathers and delivers⁹⁹ if the gatherer collected to sell without knowing what the buyer would do. But if the figs are picked by the person who eats them, even R. Meїr will agree that the sale does not induce ṭevel.. But if he gathers for [his own] food, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and is free, but if he takes them together he is obligated.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ R. Meїr holds that a sale creates ṭevel

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as they differ here they differ about a secure courtyard¹⁰⁰. since Rebbi Joḥanan said that [the rules of] buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical¹⁰¹ only by rabbinic decree, R. Jehudah insists that leniencies are possible which would be impossible for biblical obligations. The problem here is that all tithes except those of grain, wine, and oil are rabbinical. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that the basic hypothesis in all tractates of Zeraїm is that the covenant of Neḥemiah stipulates that all obligations on the Land be kept as if they were biblical. For מִקַּח בְּחָצֵר בְּשַׁבָּת one should read מִקַּח וְחָצֵר וְשַׁבָּת. The mss. presuppose that both β and ו were pronounced /ν*/*; cf. S. Baer, סידור עבודת ישׂראל p. 565.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard¹⁰² 88a, R. Joḥanan proves from Deut. 26:12: “they shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” that any place inside the city gates, including courtyards, are places where food can be eaten which by necessity must be tithed. While this is incompatible with the position of R. Joḥanan here in the Yerushalmi, it may underlie the position of R. Simeon ben Laqish..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ In Mishnah 3:5, R. Ismael declares that a Tyrian courtyard, defined as one where vessels are safe from being stolen, acts like a house for ṭevel ¹⁰¹ Since they induce ṭevel ¹⁰² In the Babli, Baba Meẓiʻa

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So did Rebbi Jehudah disprove Rebbi Meїr[’s argument]: Do you not concede to me that one who gives to his son is free? What is the difference between gathering and giving to his son or gathering and giving to another person¹⁰³? Rebbi Yudan asked: What did you see to say ‘if he gathers and delivers,’ can we not say ‘if he gathers and eats’¹⁰⁴? Rebbi Mana said, there cannot be “if he gathers and eats”, only “if he gathers and delivers,” because of that rose garden¹⁰⁵. Can you say the rose garden [is a case of] gathering and eating? No, gathering and delivering! There also, he gathers and delivers because he¹⁰⁶ would say to him, if you enter you will damage its roses! A baraita¹⁰⁷ 6:18 (in different order), Yerushalmi Ketubot8:7 (fol. 32b), Babli Baba Batra 7a, Baba Meẓi‘a 104a (both parallel the Tosephta). disagrees with Rebbi Mana’s argument: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the orchard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description¹⁰⁸.’ ”

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Since it was agreed in the first paragraph of this Halakhah that R. Meїr frees from tithes if not the fruits themselves but the right to gather them was bought, the fact that money changes hands between the farmer and a stranger but not between himself and his son becomes irrelevant. ¹⁰⁴ In this case, R. Jehudah’s reputed argument becomes irrelevant. ¹⁰⁵ According to R. Mana, Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar cannot be correct. ¹⁰⁶ The owner of the rose garden to the buyer of figs. ¹⁰⁷ Tosephta Baba Batra ¹⁰⁸ The Babli adds a clarification: Only if the properties were known as “orchard” or “vineyard”. In any case, it is shown that the “rose garden” need not contain any roses; R. Mana’s argument is invalid and the statement of Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar stands.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose¹⁰⁹, when harvested are subject to heave and tithes. In order to avoid the heave, it is necessary that they not be harvested. This means that only single berries may be plucked, not the entire bunch, not even two grapes together; small slices must be cut off the watermelon and be eaten when the watermelon still sits on the ground connected to its root; the entire watermelon will be eaten. In most cases, this means that heave and tithes cannot be avoided if the fruit is not specified at the time of the sale. In the second case the sale was concluded when there was no possibility of an obligation of heave and tithes; it is as if somebody buys an entire field of standing grain; when he harvests he is in the place of the original farmer and his produce will become subject to heave and tithes only when it is brought to storage after full processing., he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free¹¹³. 23:25,26. But after he is finished working he has no right to eat, nor has his son, unless he pays for the produce. But then he eats because of a commercial transaction and is obligated for heave and tithes.; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm¹³⁴ “cooking dates”. he should not eat benôt ševa‘¹³⁵ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person¹³⁶. so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts¹³⁷, cf. Note 80., or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ In this entire Mishnah, the fruits are still on the tree or, in the case of the watermelon, on the ground connected to their roots. In the first scenario, the fruits are chosen after the deal is closed; they are bought and, since buying induces ṭevel ¹¹³ The agricultural worker is always permitted to eat from the produce he is harvesting or processing, Deut ¹³⁴ The Mishnah mss. have לבסים‏, .לובסים, לכסים, בלוסים, כלופסין These are cooking quality figs irrespective of the strain, cf. Arabic بَلَس balas ¹³⁵ Light green delicacy figs. Since these two qualities are distinct for commercial purposes, they are distinct for the laborer. ¹³⁶ Two tree owners; their barter is a commercial transaction and induces ṭevel ¹³⁷ He prepares the figs to be dried into fig cakes. R. Jehudah holds that in this case the processing is not completed and a commercial transaction does not induce ṭevel

HALAKHAH: ‘¹¹⁰ Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He plucks single berries¹¹¹ and eats. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that is what my teacher did. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: If he bit off the minutest amount from a watermelon, he acquired it. Rebbi Jonah asked, does this also hold for a pomegranate¹¹²?

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ In the Leyden ms. and Venice print, this is the end of Halakhah 5. ¹¹¹ But never two together. ¹¹² The positive answer is too obvious to be noted since otherwise the fruit is lost.

Why do I need “on condition”? Even without “on condition”¹¹⁴! Rebbi Avin in the name of Rebbi Shammai: It is necessary, even if he says “on condition”¹¹⁵!

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Since he eats by biblical decree, there is no need to stipulate. ¹¹⁵ The Mishnah does not state a condition, that the worker may only eat if he stipulates so, but a leniency: Even if the worker stipulates and it looks like a commercial transaction, that stipulation, being unnecessary, is being disregarded and he eats by biblical decree, not by buying. This naturally means that the worker must stay within the bounds of the biblical decree, whose details are explained in the following paragraphs, in order to remain free from heave and tithes.

There¹¹⁷ 7:4., we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. ¹¹⁸. 25:4: “You may not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” This is discussed in the Yerushalmi (here and Baba Meẓiʻa 7:2, fol. 11b), the Babli Baba Meẓiʻa 89a, Sifry Deut. 287, and the Tosephta Baba Meẓiʻa 8:7. The Yerushalmi sources (Yerushalmi, Sifry, and part of the Tosephta) take “threshing” as the catch word; Babylonian sources (Babli and part of the Tosephta) refer to “an ox”. The Yerushalmi part of the Tosephta, a text lacking the rethorical formulas, is reproduced in Yerushalmi Baba Meẓi‘a7:2. The list of exclusions, without its justification, is Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a7:2. Tosephta 2:16 allows the workers to eat the onion or garlic plants which they remove for thinning. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs¹¹⁹ 89a) using an instrument., wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes¹²⁰”, referring to countries outside the Land. Since flour is not under the obligation of ḥallah as long as it is not kneaded as dough, the expression “before the obligation of” is shorthand for “anything not under the obligation at the start of work.” This applies also to the Yerushalmi version since the farmhand who turns threshed and winnowed grain into an orderly heap may eat from the grain even though at the end of his work the heap is subject to heave and tithes.. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates¹²¹, or bakes.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Mishnah Baba Meẓiʻa ¹¹⁸ Threshing refers to Deut ¹¹⁹ According to Rashi (Baba Meẓi‘a ¹²⁰ Babylonian sources add “the obligation of ḥallah ¹²¹ Separates the dough into smaller loaves for baking.

¹²². 266, 267; Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 87b. It is written (Deut. 23:26): “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain,” he who has permission to swing a sickle, that means the laborer. Issy ben Aqabiah says, the verse speaks about everybody. Why does the verse say, “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain?” He has no right except at the time of swinging the sickle¹²³., ed. S. Fish (Jerusalem 1975) p. 533 = Midrash Tannaïm, ed. Hoffmann, p. 153.. It was stated¹²⁴ is not found in any other source.: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, how far was the Torah careful about robbery that it judged between a human and his neighbor about a swing of the sickle! How great is labor, since the generation of the Flood was destroyed only because of robbery, but the laborer does his work, eats, and is free of any robbery!

footnotes: ¹²² Similar texts in Sifry Deut ¹²³ It seems that Issy ben Aqabiah’s text is corrupt. The Rome text reads: אִיסִּי בֶּן עֲקַבְיָה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁאָר כָּל־אָדָם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר מַה פּוֹעֵל יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהָנִיף אַתְּ אָמוּר וּשְׁאָר כָּל־בְּנֵי אָדָן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם רְשׁוּת לְהָנִיף לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְחֶרְמֵשׁ לֹא תָנִיף מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לֶאֱכוֹל אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַנָּפַת מַגָּל … “Issy ben Aqabiah says, the verse speaks about everybody. Since you speak about the laborer who has the right to swing the sickle, so much more other people who have no right to swing the sickle. The verse says ‘do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain,’ he has no right except at the time of swinging the sickle.”In this version, Issy ben Aqabiah agrees that only the laborer has the right to eat from the farmer’s harvest and only at harvest time; this is the position of Aqabiah ben Mehalalel, Midrash Haggadol Deut ¹²⁴ This baraita

¹²⁵ 88b. It is written (Deut. 25:4): “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” Is there only an ox in the cut and a human in the standing¹²⁶7:2.? May a human eat from the cut¹²⁷? If an ox which does not eat from the standing may eat from the cut, a human who may eat from the standing should a fortiori be able to eat from the cut. The verse says, “do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” To an ox applies “do not muzzle”; to a human “do not muzzle” does not apply. May an ox eat from the standing¹²⁸? If a human who does not eat from the cut may eat from the standing, an ox which may eat from the cut should a fortiori be able to eat from the standing. This means, if “do not muzzle” applies to one case, it also should apply to the other. The verse says, “do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” You may not muzzle him when he is threshing but you may muzzle him for what is standing on the ground.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ A similar argument is in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a ¹²⁶ Only cut grain can be threshed, so the ox certainly eats from cut grain when threshing. Since it was established that the laborer may eat during the harvest, there is no reason to require that he eat only from the ears already cut. Therefore, he certainly may eat from cut grain on condition that some be still standing; Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a ¹²⁷ After the harvest has been completed. ¹²⁸ May an ox be muzzled working the field?

From here¹²⁹ 1:1, Note 7), he could stipulate in exchange for a lump sum payment that his wife would not be supported by his master. they said, ¹³⁰ 7:6. That Mishnah is not discussed in either Talmud.“a person may renounce for himself, his adult son or daughter, or his adult male or female slave, or his wife, because they have a mind. But he may not renounce for his minor son or daughter, or his minor male or female slave, or his animal¹³¹, because they have no mind.”

footnotes: ¹²⁹ The Mishnah which states that a laborer can sign away his right to eat from the harvest for a financial consideration. Then he can also hire out his adult children or slaves without right to eat for additional payment. If he would sell himself as a Hebrew slave (assuming that the Jubilee laws are in effect, cf. Ševiït ¹³⁰ Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a ¹³¹ He cannot rent out his animal for threshing and stipulate that it may be muzzled.

He who eats by biblical decree, should he not be obligated¹³²? Rebbi Jonah said, the Torah freed him¹³³.

footnotes: ¹³² Since the laborer may not from the harvest as the result of a contract between himself and the farmer, did he not acquire the right to eat by executing the contract (even if oral) and should he not be treated as buyer of the fruit he is eating and be obligated for heave and tithes? ¹³³ Since the verses treat his eating as integral part of the harvest, the (rabbinic) obligation of a buyer cannot be applied here.

There¹³⁸ 7:4., we have stated: “When he is working on figs he should not eat grapes, on grapes he should not eat figs.” On that, we stated: If he is working on one branch, he should not eat from another branch¹³⁹ 91b, only notes that if he is working on one vine, he should not eat from another vine.. Also, we have stated: “When he is working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa.” This is needed, even if both are on the same branch.

footnotes: ¹³⁸ Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a ¹³⁹ The Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a

¹⁴². 266; a different baraita Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 87b. It is written (Deut. 23:25): “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard¹⁴³.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says: “Do not put into your own vessel,” but you may put into somebody else’s vessel. Who is this? This is the laborer¹⁴⁴. “You may eat grapes.” Do we not know that in a vineyard there is nothing to eat but grapes? Why does the verse say, you may eat grapes¹⁴⁵ 7:5.? From here [it follows] that if he works fig trees he cannot eat grapes, vines he cannot eat figs. “All your soul’s desire,” all that your inclination may be. “All your soul’s desire,” anything that is free from tithes. What you eat without obligation also the laborer may eat without obligation¹⁴⁶. “All your soul’s desire,” from here that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages. From here did Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma¹⁴⁷ 7:4, Tosephta Baba Meẓi‘a8:8. deduce that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages, but the Sages permit it. From where that his wages are called his soul? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it says here “his soul” and it says at another place “his soul” as it is written (Deut. 24:15): “For that he carries his soul.” Just as “his soul” there means his wages, so here “his soul” means his wages. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not eat and vomit¹⁴⁸. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not peel figs or suck out grapes¹⁴⁹ 8:8. The laborer has to eat all that is edible..

footnotes: ¹⁴² A different text with similar meaning in Sifry Deut ¹⁴³ The verse reads: If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard you may eat grapes to all your soul’s desire until you are satiated, but do not put anything into your own vessel. ¹⁴⁴ Who harvests into the farmer’s vessel. ¹⁴⁵ What is the practical difference between “you may eat in the vineyard” and “you may eat grapes in the vineyard”? The same argument Yerushalmi Baba Meẓi‘a ¹⁴⁶ This and the following parallel argument refer כנפשך to the employer’s soul and desire, not the laborer’s. This interpretation is also in all parallel sources. ¹⁴⁷ A Tanna of the third generation, student of R. Joshua in the Academy of Jabneh. His statement is in Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a ¹⁴⁸ He should not induce vomiting to free his stomach for more food. ¹⁴⁹ Tosephta Baba Meẓi‘a

¹⁵¹ 8:3,4; Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 89a, 90b.“The laborers are permitted to dip their bread in sauce so they should eat more grapes. The employer is permitted to give them wine to drink so they should eat less grapes. The owner of a cow is permitted to starve her through the night so she should eat much while threshing. The employer is permitted to feed her bundles of straw so she should not eat much while threshing.” Rebbi Abbahu said, give citrus to the animals! Rebbi Ḥanania fed them fig cake. Rebbi Mana fed them carrots¹⁵² 2, Note 63..

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Tosephta Baba Meẓi‘a ¹⁵² Cf. Demay

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The laborer may eat the first bunch of grapes¹⁵³ 8:8. Therefore, R. Ḥiyya is R. Ḥiyya the elder.. It was stated, the last bunch. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Hila: If he put it in the basket it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, that needs to be said if he harvests and another transports¹⁵⁴. But if he harvests and transports originally¹⁵⁵ he eats because of local usage¹⁵⁶. At the end he eats because of “¹⁵⁷ 7:5. This rule is justified in the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 91b) as being in the employer’s interest, so that the laborers are free to work when they arrive at the next row. This means that this rule also may be modified according to local custom. the laborers eat when they go from one row to the next and when they return to the winepress, and the donkey¹⁵⁸ until it is unloaded.”

footnotes: ¹⁵³ Even before he harvested one bunch for his employer. A similar text in Tosephta Baba Meẓi‘a ¹⁵⁴ In that case, his work on the bunch is finished the moment it is put into the basket; it no longer is his harvest. ¹⁵⁵ From one vine to the next or to the winepress. ¹⁵⁶ Not by biblical decree. Therefore, this rule is valid only where it is included in the standard labor contract by local custom. ¹⁵⁷ Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a ¹⁵⁸ If an animal carries food and if it can turn its head and eat from it, one is forbidden by biblical law to prevent it from eating.

It was stated: A person may use a trick so his workers will eat ten and cut one¹⁵⁹. Some Tannaïm stated: That they will cut ten and eat one. We understand “that they will eat ten and cut one.” But “that they will cut ten and eat one”¹⁶⁰? Rebbi Abin said, that you should not say it is as if done after the end of their work, and it should be obligated¹⁶¹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ Explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda: If somebody wants to give figs to another person he employs him pro forma. Then the other may eat as much as he likes without tithing as long as he cuts a fig from the tree, i. e., harvests something for the giver. ¹⁶⁰ If the recipients perform real work, what is the trick? ¹⁶¹ Since the other person is not a real laborer, without the trick it would be a gift which is subject to heave and tithes.

We understand that eating may be obligated, but should cutting be obligated? Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr says trade induces ṭevel in produce not completely processed¹⁶². Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer both said the same¹⁶³. As Rebbi Eliezer said, heave induces ṭevel in produce not completely processed so Rebbi Meïr said trade induces ṭevel in produce not completely processed.

footnotes: ¹⁶² This paragraph refers back to the Mishnah which states that if people exchange their harvests they are obligated for tithes according to the Sages. ¹⁶³ It is not really the same. R. Eleazar proclaims that R. Eliezer and R. Meïr will rule the same way in both cases.