MISHNAH: He who pickles, cooks, or salts in the field is obligated¹. He who stores in the ground² is free. He who dips³ in the field is free. He who pounds olives to remove the resin is free. He who squeezes olives on his skin is free but if he squeezed and put into his hand⁴ he is obligated. He who prepares wine sauce for a dish⁵ is free but in a pot⁶ it is obligated for it is like a small cistern.

footnotes: ¹ All these activities are considered final processing, as explained in the Halakhah. “Cooking” means preserving by prolonged cooking; “salting” is salting to preserve. ² Unripe produce to ripen during storage. ³ Fruits in salt, salt water, or vinegar, to eat them on the spot as a snack. ⁴ Since the oil is collected, it is as if pressed in an oil-press and considered processed. ⁵ A small amount of thickened wine added to a dish already on a plate does not induce the obligation of tithes. ⁶ If the pot is on the fire, the obligation is induced by the fire. If the pot is empty and cold, the obligation is explained in the Mishnah; the pot acts as miniature vat.

HALAKHAH: Fire creates ṭevel, buying creates ṭevel, salt creates ṭevel, heave creates ṭevel, the Sabbath creates ṭevel, a secure courtyard creates ṭevel,⁷ but Rebbi Joḥanan said that buying and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

footnotes: ⁷ This refers to the discussion Chapter 2:2–3. For the statements of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, cf. Chapter 2, Notes 101–102.

He who pickles, only if he pickles completely⁸ only if the pickling is completed, or at least if the brine is strong enough that the vegetables would be completely cured if left in the brine for a sufficient time?? He who cooks, only if he cooks thoroughly? Let us hear from the following: If one singes ears of grain in the fire they become ṭevel⁹. Without that, would they not need to be worked over by fire¹⁰? There is a difference here, because that is the end of their processing¹¹. Where has this been said¹²? If one plucks out kernels from ears destined for dough, if it is to eat them rolled¹³ they are ṭevel, but to make a dough they are not ṭevel¹⁴ 13a reads: If somebody brought ears from the field, if it is to make them into dough [and the ears must be threshed and milled] he may eat a snack from them, if to roll them [and eat them raw], Rebbi declares obligated but Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah declares them to be free [since they are called “grain”, subject to tithes, only after threshing.] The baraita here follows R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. All the argument here proves is that it is possible that pickling and preserving by cooking makes ṭevel only if the intent was to do a thorough job..

footnotes: ⁸ Does it become ṭevel ⁹ A similar statement in Tosephta 3:1, in the name of R. Simeon. ¹⁰ Since grain is rarely eaten raw. ¹¹ Since the ears are lightly roasted as ears, it is clear that the grains should be eaten unmilled. ¹² That the intent counts. ¹³ Rolled between the fingers to make them edible raw. ¹⁴ The language here is unclear since if the ears are destined for dough they are not for eating raw. The parallel in Babli Beẓah

If he pickled or cooked without the owners’ knowledge, there is a difference between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since these differ: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Yudan said, there it is impossible for him not to make a heap¹⁶. Fragments of this discussion are in Chapter 1, cf. Notes 22, 138., here it is possible for him not to pickle.

footnotes: ¹⁶ After threshing, the grain must be raked together to be used. Therefore, R. Joḥanan may hold that the heap was made with the implied consent of the owner. This is not the case for pickling olives. R. Joḥanan may hold that pickling without consent of the owner does not create ṭevel

If he cooked it while it was property of the Temple¹⁷, redeemed it, and brought it into a secure courtyard, what is its status? In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁸ by biblical law after redemption when the preserve is now fully profane. it became ṭevel; this is biblical, that is not biblical. If he brought it into a secure courtyard, redeemed and then cooked it, everybody agrees that it became ṭevel, what did he process while it was property of the Temple¹⁹? If he dedicated it, cooked it, brought it into a secure courtyard, redeemed it, and cooked it again, everybody agrees that it became ṭevel²⁰. If he redeemed it²¹ and put it out to dry, what is its status? If you say that fire creates ṭevel, fire frees from ṭevel; if you say that fire does not create ṭevel, fire does not free from ṭevel²²; therefore, being cooked while Temple property does not count and the later drying is the final processing of profane food..

footnotes: ¹⁷ Temple property is exempt from heave and tithes; cf. Chapter 1, Note 19. ¹⁸ Cf. Note 7. While it was the intent of the person who had dedicated the produce to free it from heave and tithes by processing while it was property of the Temple, R. Simeon ben Laqish will disregard rabbinic processing when dedicated if it is followed by an action which induces ṭevel ¹⁹ In the exempt state, transporting to a secure courtyard is not an act of processing. ²⁰ By the second cooking. ²¹ After a first cooking while Temple property. ²² For R. Joḥanan, the first cooking was the processing and anything done later does not count. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the first cooking outside courtyard or house would not induce ṭevel

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he fried in the field, what is its status²³? Does not the fire create ṭevel anyhow²⁴, the answer seems obvious.? Is it impossible not to use oil²⁵, the question of R. Jeremiah is already answered.?

footnotes: ²³ May it be eaten as a snack without tithing? ²⁴ Since we hold that fire always induces ṭevel ²⁵ That would be the singeing indicated in Note 11. Since singeing creates ṭevel

Rebbi Yose used to asked in the name of Cahana: Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: If someone organized a meal in a circle²⁶ in the field he created ṭevel. If one did not organize a meal a circle he did not create ṭevel. What organizing in a circle creates ṭevel? Any meal in a circle with wine. If people prepared to eat in a circle but then did not²⁷?

footnotes: ²⁶ To eat together. Snacks are eaten alone. ²⁷ This is Cahana’s question; it remains unanswered.

It was stated²⁸: “Garlic, garden cress²⁹, Rashi קרש״ון French cresson; Maimonides Arabic رشاد Lepidium sativum, garden peppergrass., and mustard seed which were prepared in the field became ṭevel” That means, ṭevel garlic with profane oil. Profane garlic with ṭevel oil³⁰.?

footnotes: ²⁸ A similar text Tosephta 3:2. ²⁹ A kind of Lepidium ³⁰ This question should not have been asked since oil used to prepare condiments is certainly forbidden when ṭevel

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A bunch of grapes which he squeezed into a cup³¹ became ṭevel; into a tamḥui³² 8, Note 83. it did not become ṭevel.

footnotes: ³¹ This becomes a formal drink, not a snack. ³² Cf. Peah

Does not the fire induce ṭevel anyhow³³ sauce on any hot dish, the entire dish becomes ṭevel.? Explain it if the dish was cold. “In a pot it is obligated;” Rebbi Eleazar said, that refers to an empty pot³⁴. The Mishnah does not say so, but “he who prepares wine sauce for a dish is free but in a pot it is obligated for it is like a small cistern³⁵.”

footnotes: ³³ This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, quoted in this paragraph. If one puts ṭevel ³⁴ Otherwise the statement of the Mishnah were superfluous, Note 6. ³⁵ Which usually is not empty.

MISHNAH: If children hid figs for the Sabbath³⁶. While children have no legal standing, their actions can show their intent which then is determining. and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath³⁷ until they are tithed. A Sabbath basket³⁸ even before the Sabbath. the House of Shammai free but the House of Hillel obligate. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who fills a harvesting basket to send to a friend³⁹ may not eat from it unless he tithed. He who takes olives from the vat⁵⁰ may dip them singly into salt and eat them, but if he salted them as a dish he is obligated⁵¹ 35a reads (in most mss.) “if he salted ten together”; this is against the Yerushalmi which forbids even two together.. Rebbi Eliezer says, from a pure vat he is obligated⁵² 35a) explains that the person taking the olives is presumed to be impure. This is understood also in the Halakhah here. but from an impure one he is free because he might put the leftovers back [into the vat]. One may drink from the winepress both warm or cold and is free, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq declares him obligated. But the Sages say, for warm drink he is obligated, cold he is free⁵³ 11b, Eruvin99b) and one Mishnah ms. the reading is: “he is free because he may return it.” In that version, Mishnah 4 is parallel Mishnah 3 and cider, cooked or mixed with warm water, is considered completely processed because returning it would spoil the wine. Maimonides, both in his Commentary and his Code (Ma‘serot 5:15) holds that heating induces ṭevel in all cases..

footnotes: ³⁶ They hid it in the field since otherwise the house would have induced ṭevel ³⁷ But one may eat from these figs on Friday afternoon between the hiding and the start of the Sabbath. Since children do not legally have a mind, their figs can become subject to heave and/or tithes only through the Sabḅath itself. ³⁸ Either from a tree whose fruits are only used for the Sabbath (Maimonides) or any arbitrary harvesting basket filled exclusively for eating on the Sabbath (R. Simson); since the person making the collection is an adult, his intent induces ṭevel ³⁹ For the Sabbath (R. Simson) or any day (Maimonides). In any case, the collection in that particular basket is the end of processing by the farmer. ⁵⁰ Into which the olives are collected before being transported to the oil press. ⁵¹ Since there are many together. The quote in Babli Beẓah ⁵² The Babli (Beẓah ⁵³ In the Babli (Šabbat

HALAKHAH: Rav Hamnuna said, if a child covered a harvesting basket for transport to the market, it became ṭevel; in any situation in which the intent of an adult has an effect, the action of a minor has an effect. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Since the intent of an adult does not have an effect until he opens on the market, the action of a minor should not have an effect until he opens on the market⁴⁰! The Mishnah disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed.⁴¹ is induced. Maybe the children collected the figs for consumption on Sunday.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent⁴²!

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Mishnah 1:5 states that processing of figs for sale is completed when the basket is covered for transport to the market and the basket is actually transported to the market; while for making fig cakes and domestic uses the processing is never completed in the field. It is not really required that the basket be opened on the market for sale but that the transport should have started; cf. Chapter 1, Note 115. In any case, the action of a minor cannot be more powerful than the intent of an adult; the statement of Rav Hamnuna cannot be accepted without due modification. ⁴¹ Here there is no action which proves intent and nevertheless ṭevel ⁴² Children do not plan ahead; they collected for immediate consumption which by necessity must be on the Sabbath.

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath induces ṭevel? Because they collected for the Sabbath; therefore, not if they did not collect for the Sabbath⁴³ at the start of the next Sabbath irrespective of its place. The fact that the figs were collected for the Sabbath should be irrelevant.! Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna⁴⁴: Even if they collected for the Sabbath one may eat a snack from them on Sabbath eve. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁴⁵. Are they not children and even if they collected for the Sabbath it is as if they had not collected for the Sabbath⁴⁶ by biblical law, there must be clear intent to use the fruits on the Sabbath to make them ṭevel but children have no legal intent.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila⁴⁴: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent⁴²!

footnotes: ⁴³ This now refers to the Mishnah: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath”. According to R. Joḥanan, any untithed fruit completely processed becomes ṭevel ⁴⁴ The names of the authors are switched in the Rome ms., the first answer being by Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, the second by Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna. The correct chain of transmission cannot be ascertained. Since the speakers in this paragraph are Amoraïm a full generation after R. Zeïra, “in the name of Rav Hamnuna” must mean: giving the answer Rav Hamnuna would have given according to R. Zeïra. ⁴⁵ In the Rome ms: R. Joḥanan. This certainly is a scribal error. ⁴⁶ Since for R. Simeon ben Laqish the Sabbath does not induce ṭevel ⁴⁴ The names of the authors are switched in the Rome ms., the first answer being by Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila, the second by Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna. The correct chain of transmission cannot be ascertained. Since the speakers in this paragraph are Amoraïm a full generation after R. Zeïra, “in the name of Rav Hamnuna” must mean: giving the answer Rav Hamnuna would have given according to R. Zeïra. ⁴² Children do not plan ahead; they collected for immediate consumption which by necessity must be on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah⁴⁷ speaks of a harvesting basket of figs. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, even a branch. Rebbi Eleazar ben Antigonos in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yannai: Explain it for a fig tree reserved for the Sabbath. Example: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Ammi were sitting together when somebody passed by with a harvesting basket of figs. He said to him, [we want] to buy! He answered, the Sabbath basket is not for sale⁴⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ The difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel regarding the Sabbath basket. ⁴⁸ Therefore, its processing is completed as soon as the basket is filled.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only about a Sabbath basket. Maybe Rebbi Jehudah spoke about someone who collected a harvesting basket full to send to his friend, that he cared for it as if it were a Sabbath basket⁴⁹ or any basket treated with the same care as a Sabbath basket? The question is not answered since practice does not follow R. Jehudah.?

footnotes: ⁴⁹ The second sentence questions the meaning of R. Ḥiyya’s statement: Does R. Joḥanan imply that only a Sabbath basket induces immediate ṭevel

Does this not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, it is forbidden to eat⁵⁴. Explain it if he makes his vat in the field. It is still difficult: If salting induces ṭevel⁵⁵, why do we need taking together, if taking together induces, why do we need salting? It must be both.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Salted olives from the vat. ⁵⁵ Mishnah 1. While this salting is not for long-term preservation, it is needed to give the green olives an edible taste.

Where do we hold⁵⁶? If there are two vats⁵⁷, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If there is only one vat⁵⁸, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Where do we hold? If he has a pure vat and his friend an impure one. Rebbi Eliezer says, a person may return to his friend’s vat but the rabbis say, a person does not return to his friend’s vat⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ The disagreement between R. Eliezer and the anonymous majority who do not accept the distinction he makes. ⁵⁷ One pure, the other one impure. Even if he takes from the impure, we do not permit him to return the uneaten olives; maybe he would put them into the wrong vat. ⁵⁸ Which is impure. ⁵⁹ An echo of this discussion is in Tosephta 3:7; there, the text tradition is confusing.

⁶⁰ Rebbi Joḥanan said, for warm [cider] he is obligated because that is not a snack; cold is free because it is a snack and he may put it back. Following⁶¹ what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he woul put it back in the end.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Discussion of Mishnah 4. ⁶¹ Halakhah 1:6, Note 151.

MISHNAH: If somebody peels barley, he may peel one by one and eat but if he peeled and collected in his hand he is obligated. If somebody rolls wheat grains he may blow away⁶² the chaff from his hand and eat but if he blew away and stored in the fold of his toga, he is obligated. If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free. If it was sown as vegetable, seeds and greenery are obligated. Rebbi Eliezer said, dill is tithed seeds, vegetable, and perianths⁶³ 7b) and Maimonides (Commentary to the Mishnah).. But the Sages say, only cress²⁹, Rashi קרש״ון French cresson; Maimonides Arabic رشاد Lepidium sativum, garden peppergrass. and wild rocket⁶⁴ 7–2, Note 7. are tithed⁶⁵ seeds and vegetable.

footnotes: ⁶² The majority of Mishnah mss. read: נפה “sifted [from hand to hand]”. ⁶³ Concurrent definition of Rashi (Babli Avodah Zarah ²⁹ A kind of Lepidium ⁶⁴ Ševi’it ⁶⁵ For separate tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, I may peel two by two. It is stated so⁶⁶: “Barley, two are free, three obligated; wheat, three are free, four obligated.” Huna bar Ḥinena⁶⁷ and Rav Taḥlifa bar Immi were sitting before Rebbi Eleazar. {Rebbi Jonah said, either all are “bar Immi” but this one “bar Rav Immi” or all are “bar Rav Immi”⁶⁸.} He⁶⁹ had [grains] up to the knuckles of his fingers. They were taking from him. He turned his face to the wall and showed them his hand full⁷⁰ as long as they will be peeled one by one according to the rules.. It is stated so: Only he should not sift into a reed-basket or into a wide basket. For the Sabbath, up to the volume of a dried fig⁷¹. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: Here, they said for barley, two are free, three obligated; there, you say so⁷² which allows stripping of barlay grains as long as the stripped grains are eaten directly and not stored in any basket.? He said to him, there is a difference; here you say that he may put the remainder back. It was stated so: When has this been said⁷³, when he is not close to the threshing floor. But when he was close to the threshing floor [he can have] even more since he may put the remainder back.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Tosephta 3:6. R. Zeїra states that practice follows the Tosephta, rather than the Mishnah. ⁶⁷ He cannot be the Rav Huna bar Ḥinena mentioned in the Babli who was a student of Rav Ḥisda and, it seems, never left Babylonia. ⁶⁸ In this text, R. Jonah, two generations later, was unsure whether there were one or two Rav Taḥlifa bar (Rav) Immi or only one. In the Rome ms., the text reads: “R. Jonah said, either all are ‘bar Ammi’ but this one ‘bar Rav Ammi’ or all are ‘bar Rav Ammi’ and this one ‘bar Ammi’.” Since this version uses the Babylonian ‘Ammi’ instead of the Galilean ‘Immi’, it seems to be preferable. In this version, it is clear that there were several traditions ascribed to Rav Taḥlifa bar (Rav) Ammi. None of these have come down to us. ⁶⁹ R. Eleazar. ⁷⁰ A handfull of unpeeled grains does not induce ṭevel ⁷¹ If from private to public domain one carries grains less than the volume of a dried fig, one is not guilty. ⁷² The baraita ⁷³ Two barley grains but not three.

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, the budding fruits⁷⁷ and Ma’serot Arukh and Maimonides define תמדות as budding fruits; this is accepted by I. Löw. In his Commentary to Parah 11:7, Maimonides explains as pods. of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes. Rebbi Eliezer says, the caper tree is subject to tithes for its budding fruits and capers⁷⁸. Rebbi Aqiba says, only the berries⁷⁹ are subject because they are fruit.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ In Ševiїt ⁷⁸ Flower buds of the caper bush. ⁷⁹ They contain seeds which can be substituted for mustard seeds.

HALAKHAH: ⁷⁴2:8. The second paragraph is practically identical (except for the order of subjects) with a paragraph there; Notes 80–81.Ḥizqiah said, if he collected two or three modii⁷⁵ is a dry measure, corresponding to the seah. Because of the parallel with Ševiït, the commentators change מודייות into מורביות morbiot, a word that seems to indicate watering periods, cf. Ševiït 2:8, Note 83. This must be the intended meaning in the next sentence: If the farmer stops watering in order to hasten the ripening of the seeds, he cannot be interested in the vegetable. Also, one cannot withhold bushels from vegetables. But it does not make much sense to change the reading in the first sentence which speaks of harvesting vegetables. In the second sentence, the expression “two or three” must have slipped in as parallel to the first sentence since the discussion in Ševiїt 2:8 shows clearly that only the withholding of three waterings determines the crop as seeds. from it, it comes under the category of vegetable. Also for seeds it is so: If he withheld from it two or three morbiot⁷⁵ is a dry measure, corresponding to the seah. Because of the parallel with Ševiït, the commentators change מודייות into מורביות morbiot, a word that seems to indicate watering periods, cf. Ševiït 2:8, Note 83. This must be the intended meaning in the next sentence: If the farmer stops watering in order to hasten the ripening of the seeds, he cannot be interested in the vegetable. Also, one cannot withhold bushels from vegetables. But it does not make much sense to change the reading in the first sentence which speaks of harvesting vegetables. In the second sentence, the expression “two or three” must have slipped in as parallel to the first sentence since the discussion in Ševiїt 2:8 shows clearly that only the withholding of three waterings determines the crop as seeds., it comes under the category of seeds. If one sowed it for seeds it is tithed for the past; if he sowed it as vegetable it is tithed for the future. If he sowed it for both seeds and vegetable, or if he sowed for seeds and then wanted it as vegetable, one may tithe from its seed on vegetable and from vegetable on seeds, on condition that it was collected before the New Year; but if some of it was collected after the New Year, its seed is tithed for the past and its vegetable is tithed at the moment of its being harvested if it was one-third ripe before the New Year. But if it was only ripe one-third after the New Year, both seed and vegetable are tithed for the future.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah, about the tithing of coriander. The two paragraphs refer to Ševiїt ⁷⁵ This is the reading here in both mss. and the Venice print. A Roman modius ⁷⁵ This is the reading here in both mss. and the Venice print. A Roman modius

It was stated⁷⁶2:7. There, the text reads: “If he sowed it for perianths, it is tithed for seeds and perianths but the vegetable is free.”: “Dill sown for its seeds is tithed for seeds but not vegetable. If sown as vegetable, it is tithed for seeds and vegetable but not perianths. If sown it for periants, it is tithed for seeds, vegetable, and perianths.” But we have stated: “Only cress and wild rocket are tithed for seeds and vegetable!” So is the Mishnah: The only things sown for seeds which are tithed for seeds and vegetable are cress and wild rocket.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ A similar text in Tosephta Ševiїt

Where do they disagree⁸⁰? When he sowed it for its seeds. But if he sowed it as vegetable, even the rabbis agree. It was stated so⁸¹: “In Bethany⁸² p. 698. they used to permit its vegetable, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” He said only “the words of Rebbi Eliezer;” therefore, everybody else says it is obligated.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ The majority who cannot agree with Rabban Gamliel; if they agreed, his statement would have been stated as anonymous. Since he obligates the pods of mustard seed for tithes, they must free them. ⁸¹ Tosephta 3:7: They used to permit the vegetables, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. ⁸² In the Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta, כמותכם “like you”, which S. Klein reads as במותנם “in Batanaia”, a name of the Bashan region; cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah

It was stated⁸³ 2:8.: “If one sowed Lima beans, barley, or fenugreek as vegetables⁸⁴, his intention is disregarded; the seeds are obligated but the greenery is free.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that also is from the words of Rebbi Eliezer⁸⁵ 28a, accepts the statement as majority opinion..

footnotes: ⁸³ Tosephta Ševiït ⁸⁴ To eat the green stalks. ⁸⁵ We could understand that Lima beans and barley are excluded as vegetables, but fenugreek was stated in the preceding paragraph to be freed only by R. Eliezer. Therefore, the entire statement must be attributed to R. Eliezer. The Babli, Eruvin

Samuel said, capers are forbidden because of skins⁸⁸. It was stated so: (Lev. 19:23) “You shall treat as foreskin the foreskin of its fruit;” anything which envelopes the fruit. Rav commanded those of the House of Ati, Rav Hamnuna commanded the colleagues: Tell your wives that when they come to preserve capers to throw away the calix. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra explained to me that all skins grow with the fruit but there, the fruit is on top and the skins below⁸⁹ 37b, the same conclusion is reached..

footnotes: ⁸⁸ If the caper bush is not yet in its fourth year, the fruits are forbidden for any use. Samuel and Rav hold that the calix which remains attached to the fruit will become forbidden with the fruit. ⁸⁹ The opinion of the Galilean academies is that the atrophied remainder of the calix is not a shell in the legal sense, or a part of the fruit, and therefore not forbidden the first three years. In the Babli, Berakhot

Capers and budding fruits are one kind; one tithes from capers for budding fruit and from budding fruit for capers but not from both for ripe fruits or from ripe fruits for them. On the ripe fruits one applies the stringencies of both trees and vegetables. In which respect? If it is after the second year going into the third⁹⁰, he separates, redeems, and gives it to the poor.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Or the fifth year of the Sabbatical cycle going into the sixth. Trees are tithed according to the rules valid at the time of fertilization. This would be the 2nd or 5th year in which second tithe is due which has to be redeemed in the absence of a Temple. Vegetables are tithed by the rules of the day of harvest. In the 3rd and 6th years, tithe of the poor is due. Therefore, caper seeds are tithed as second tithe; the tithe is redeemed and then given to the poor as tithe of the poor.

The caper bush⁹²5:8. A shortened version, not mentioning grains, is in Tosephta Kilaim 3:17 and Babli Berakhot 36a.. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard⁹³ and those of fruit trees for orlah, so that its fruit is forbidden the first three years after planting (Lev. 19:23). but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Papa⁹³ and those of fruit trees for orlah, so that its fruit is forbidden the first three years after planting (Lev. 19:23). stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here⁹⁴ 5:5: “R. Ḥama bar ‘Uqba in the name of R. Yose. Anything that grows from both root and stem is a root (a vegetable); from its stem but not from its root it is a tree.” In that formulation, cabbage presents no problem since there is no piece of stem free of leaves. when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

footnotes: ⁹² This paragraph is also in Kilaim ⁹³ The House of Shammai are unsure whether caper bushes are trees or vegetables and therefore apply the stringency of vegetables for kilaim ⁹³ The House of Shammai are unsure whether caper bushes are trees or vegetables and therefore apply the stringency of vegetables for kilaim ⁹⁴ He is R. Ḥanina bar Pappai. His statement appears in another version (another redaction) in Baba Batra