MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free¹. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free² (Halakhah 4:1), this holds only for produce already harvested.. If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free³. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated⁴.. Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor¹⁷. Onions which developed roots in storage¹⁸ became pure¹⁹ and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field²⁰, and the Sabbatical year..

footnotes: ¹ This is neither harvesting nor selling; no obligation of tithe is created. שתלים means “saplings” but this is not the meaning here since it is implied that the young trees transplanted already carry usable fruits and, therefore, are more than three years old. The word שתלים denotes any plant planted, not produced directly from seeds. ² While a sale creates ṭevel ³ Since this is not a sale. ⁴ In that case, the produce could be considered fully processed as far as the original farmer is concerned and is ṭevel ¹⁷ These vegetables are not processed since they are grown for seeds. Therefore, they are considered harvested. If grown for consumption or sale, they cannot become subject to tithes by being transplanted since that would free the later growth from heave and tithes. ¹⁸ בעליה “when stored on the upper floor of the farmhouse.” ¹⁹ They became new plants which in their growing phase are immune to any kind of impurity. ²⁰ Subject to the laws of heave, tithes, kilaim

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lifts out plants from his own property”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s. As we have stated there⁶ 1:6; Notes 275–276., “He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is the opinion of everybody. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the matter of young plants⁷. What is the difference between wheat and young plants? For wheat, it was the end of processing⁸; for plants it is not the end of processing⁹. Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages in the matter of turnips and radishes because they spoil¹⁰. Does wheat not also spoil? Wheat admits another threshing floor¹¹, these have no other threshing floor.

footnotes: ⁶ Mishnah Peah ⁷ In no way can taking young plants be compared to taking grains from the threshing floor. ⁸ Threshing is really the end of processing for wheat. Smoothing the heap helps the farmer to know how much grain he has; it is not processing the food. ⁹ It is not even the beginning since no fruits have been plucked. ¹⁰ Taking them out of the ground is the end of processing since in the absence of refrigeration they have to be consumed immediately. ¹¹ The smoothing of the heaps.

“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he¹² is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr¹³. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr¹⁴? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so¹⁵: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow¹⁶ 1:3, Note 130., he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.

footnotes: ¹² The sender. ¹³ Chapter 2, Halakhah 5. ¹⁴ Chapter 2, last paragraph. ¹⁵ Tosephta 3:8. There, instead of “bundles of fenugreek” it speaks of “bundles of untreated flax.” The Sages hold that people usually tithe these before they send them. ¹⁶ See Introduction to Tractate Demay; even a vulgar will always give heave; cf. Demay

There is no difference, whether for sowing seeds, to abandon property, or [to plant] outside the Land²¹. There²² 1:6, Note 275. The main objection is from the next clause in the Mishnah: “If he takes seeds from the threshing floor he is free from tithes until he smoothes.”, we have stated: “Forever he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” And here you say so? There, he abandons everything, here he abandons only the future growth²³. But did we not state “outside the Land?” There is a difference, outside the Land both for the stem and future growth²⁴; is here not a difference between the stem and future growth?

footnotes: ²¹ Tosephta 3:8: “If somebody lifts out plants on his own property to replant them outside the Land, either to produce seeds, or to abandon the produce, or to sell it to a Gentile, he is obligated because he intends to remove them from tithes.” ²² Mishnah Peah ²³ This implies that “to abandon the produce” in the Tosephta (and here in the Halakhah) means that he retains ownership of the plant (in the Tosephta) and the core of the turnip (in the Halakhah) and intends only to free the future growth. This is illegal. But irrevocable abandoning a plant to public use frees the plant from all heave and tithes legally and, since the poor profit from it, cannot be subject to rabbinic sanctions.The Rome ms. has here an addition: תדע לך שהוא כן דתנינן לזרע וזרע לא כגידולין הוא “You should know that is so since we have stated ‘for seeds’. Are seeds not equal to later growth?” ²⁴ Since the stem of a plant outside the Land is also outside the Land, he takes produce subject to heave and tithes by the act of taking them out of the ground and removes them completely from obligations of heave and tithes for private gain; this is subject to sanction.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said²⁵ 4:1, Note 10., ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible²⁶. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything²⁷ will not disappear, replanting will never free the current crop and no tithing now should be necessary, in obvious disagreement with the Mishnah!. Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah²⁸ but for ṭevel which has this status by their word²⁹ everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state³⁰ 3:7: “Similarly, olives for pressing {harvested by the owner by shaking the tree} which were mixed with picked olives {gleaned by the poor and exempt from tithes}, harvest grapes {subject to tithes} which were mixed with grapes of gleanings {of the poor and exempt from tithes}, if he can provide for {the obligated} from another place, he should do so; otherwise, he takes heave and Heave of the Tithe for everything but the tithes only in proportion.”: “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words³¹? Rebbi Mana³² said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing³³ which was mixed with oil from picked olives.

footnotes: ²⁵ The disagreement between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan is in Terumot ²⁶ If he replants in a way which will eliminate the duty of tithing from the ripe fruits, it is intelligible that we require him to tithe now since otherwise also the part which grew under a potential obligation will be free if the new growth is more than what is already grown. ²⁷ Since the original ṭevel ²⁸ Wine, olive oil, and threshed grain brought to storage. ²⁹ By rabbinical tradition. ³⁰ Mishnah Ḥallah ³¹ The obligation for heave and Heave of the Tithe even for the proportion gleaned by the poor cannot be biblical; if the exempt amount is more than the obligated, the entire obligation is rabbinical. ³² R. Mana II. ³³ Obligated by biblical decree.

Rebbi Mana³⁵ said, they taught only “for seeds”; therefore, for eating he is free. Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; he is obligated for seeds or for consumption because this is their threshing floor³⁶. Rebbi Ḥanina³⁷ said, because he would transfer it from second to the poor or from the poor to second³⁸.

footnotes: ³⁵ R. Mana I. In the Rome ms., the statement is attributed to R. Ammi (Immi). The reference is to the first sentence of the Mishnah, turnips and radishes grown for seeds. ³⁶ Since a vegetable is always tithed when harvested. ³⁷ He is R. Ḥinena. ³⁸ If the vegetable is replanted in one of the years 2,3,5 of the Sabbatical cycle and finally harvested the next year, second tithe of the already grown part would be changed into tithe of the poor or vice-versa.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free³⁹ since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry⁴⁰ of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state⁴¹ 1:9, Notes 161–162; speaking of harvested vegetables stored in a pit and covered with loose earth.: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden⁴² 1:9, Note 166, that the Mishnah is accepted only for vegetables which did not grow new roots after being harvested. Therefore, the Mishnah there contradicts R. Joḥanan’s statement here. because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand⁴³ it would be fine⁴⁴.

footnotes: ³⁹ While the onions are growing, taking them is not harvesting. ⁴⁰ About the verb אכפל see H. L. Fleischer’s article in Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 454. ⁴¹ Mishnah Kilaim ⁴² The next year if that happened to be a Sabbatical year. Cf. Kilaim ⁴³ The word יד “in the hand” is missing in the Rome ms. ⁴⁴ He certainly does not want to lose a whole heap but a single onion which grew new roots he might replant. If the statement had been about a single onion we could have inferred that there is a presumption that nobody wants harvested onions to start growing again (and wasting their bulbs) unless there is a clear indication to the contrary.

⁴⁵“If they grew roots in a box they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they did not lose their impurity. If they grew roots in storage¹⁸ they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they lost their impurity.” They are in their previous state and you say they lost? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: The Torah emphasized the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If from their carcass anything fell on any sown seed which may be sown⁴⁶, it is pure.”

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Tosephta 3:9. The Tosephta reads: “If they grew one on top of the other, growing roots in a box;” the roots are feeding on other onions. Even so, they are not considered planted if in a box. ¹⁸ בעליה “when stored on the upper floor of the farmhouse.” ⁴⁶ The multiple expression shows that anything remotely similar to sown plants is covered by the purity of growing plants.

In addition, it was stated⁴⁶: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit?⁴⁷ before the compilers of the Yerushalmi. A baraita which reads: “It is forbidden to take out from them on the Sabbath, and if he did he is permitted,” is inconsistent. Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty⁴⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The multiple expression shows that anything remotely similar to sown plants is covered by the purity of growing plants. ⁴⁷ This is the language of the Tosephta; it obviously was not the language of the baraitot ⁴⁸ Since above (Note 40) he questions the dependence of the status regarding the Sabbath from the status in matters of tithes.

MISHNAH: A person should not sell his produce after it reached the period of tithing⁴⁹ to anybody not trustworthy in matters of tithe, or in the Sabbatical year to anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical⁵⁰. If some were ripened early he takes the early ripe fruit⁵¹ and sells the remainder. A person should not sell his chaff or his oil cakes or his grape husks to somebody not trustworthy in matters of tithe if the latter wants to extract fluids from it. If he extracted, he is obligated for tithes⁵² but free from heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain⁵³, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff. If somebody bought a vegetable field in Syria⁶⁰ 7:6, Note 119. Produce of Syria is exempt from tithes unless it grew on the property of a Jew, Demay 6:11, Note 172. before it reached the time of tithes⁴⁹ he is obligated⁶¹, after it reached the time of tithes he is free and he⁶² can harvest continuously. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may even hire workers and harvest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, where has this been said? When he bought the field. But if he did not buy the field he is free⁶³ even after it reached the time of tithes. Rebbi said, all according to computation⁶⁴.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ As explained in Chapter 1:2–9. ⁵⁰ That he would not eat the fruits in the sanctity of the Sabbatical but use them as objects of trade. ⁵¹ For himself to tithe. The remainder which is not ripe enough to be tithed may be sold to anybody. ⁵² Since tithes are fixed percentages but heave should not be measured. “Extracting fluids” refers to oil cakes and grape husks but a similar rule applies to chaff and the single grains that still can be plucked from it after threshing. ⁵³ The parts of grain that cannot be removed from the straw in threshing. ⁶⁰ For the definition of “Syria”, cf. Peah ⁴⁹ As explained in Chapter 1:2–9. ⁶¹ Then the produce became obligated on the field of a Jew. ⁶² Himself, for his personal use. The reason one does not allow him commercial harvest is only because of the bad impression; it would look as if a Jew would disregard the obligation to tithe his fields in Syria. R. Jehudah disagrees with this restriction. ⁶³ If he only bought the crop there is no difference whether he bought it standing or harvested. ⁶⁴ Rebbi disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and holds that in any case he has to tithe the percentage of the crop added in the Jew’s possession.In the Tosephta (3:14), the anonymous opinion is attributed to R. Aqiba and that of Rebbi to the anonymous Sages.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: A person should not sell his field6⁵⁴. Rebbi Simeon permits since he⁵⁵ may say to him, I sold mine, go and demand what is yours. If he transgressed and sold, he tithes what he eats but he does not have to tithe for what he sold since we are not responsible for the dishonest⁵⁶ 3:5, Note 134..

footnotes: ⁵⁴ With the produce standing potentially subject to tithes. ⁵⁵ He, the seller, may say to him, the Levite, go and collect your tithe if you can. ⁵⁶ Cf. Mishnah Demay

It was stated: He should not give heave. If he transgressed and gave heave, Rebbi Berekhia said, he is empowered. Rebbi Mana said, he is not empowered; that heave he gave creates ṭevel for tithe⁵⁷.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Since the Mishnah stated that heave given for all grain threshed includes heave for what is left in the chaff, giving about .5% for heave does not free from giving 10% for tithes even from what was designated as heave.

Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: If he gave heave one in sixty, which is one in sixty-one including broken grain⁵⁸ 4:3., what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff? Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.” Is that not needed only for the excess⁵⁹?

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Then the heave would be invalid by rabbinical standards, Mishnah Terumot ⁵⁹ If everybody gave in excess of the minimum the question addressed in the Mishnah would be no problem. If the Mishnah states categorically that heave given for threshed grain includes all the remainder, it is clear that the rabbinic invalidation of heave which is less than 1/60 does not extend to the case here.

It was stated⁶⁵ 4:5, Notes 90–92.: If a field⁶⁶ Chapter 1, Note 78, Ševi‘it Chapter 2, Notes 63,77. became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁶⁷. It was stated⁶⁸ (9). There, the name is R. Jonathan ben Joseph, a Tanna of the fourth generation who also is quoted as R. Natan ben Joseph.: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its⁶⁹ yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁷⁰. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah⁷¹ 4(5); Babli Pesaḥim 51b., so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden⁷² as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall⁷³, cf. Peah 4:6, Note 86.. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it⁷⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁷⁵..

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Cf. Peah ⁶⁶ A grain field in the Land of Israel. “One-third ripe” means that the grains are fully formed and one-third ripe; not that one third of the growing period has passed. For grain, “one-third ripe” is the Biblical standard for grain that might be harvested, cf. Ma‘serot ⁶⁷ The status of grain as far as second tithe or tithe of the poor is concerned is determined by the time it is one-third ripe, rather than by the time of harvest. In this respect, the rules of tithing follow the rules of the Sabbatical. ⁶⁸ Sifra Behar ⁶⁹ The sixth year’s. ⁷⁰ If the Sages determine the rules of tithes by the time the grains were one-third ripe, there is no proof that R. Jonathan ben R. Yose follows R. Aqiba where the latter disagrees with the Sages. Therefore, R. Eleazar should hold that for the Sages, only the time of the actual harvest and threshing is relevant. ⁷¹ Sifra Behar Pereq ⁷² Following R. Aqiba and R. Jonathan ben R. Yose. ⁷³ If the grain was collected as fodder before it was fully ripe for human consumption. It would be forbidden to use the unripe grain as Grünkern ⁷⁴ It should be eaten following the rules of the Sabbatical. ⁷⁵ They disagree that grain one-third ripened in the possession of the Gentile should be exempt but they admit that the kind of second tithe to be given depends on the year in which the grain was edible as Grünkern

Rebbi Joḥanan said, abandonment⁷⁷, dedication⁷⁸, and Syria are in dispute between Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages about budding⁷⁹ 5:1, Note 6. and growing roots⁸⁰ 2:7.. If somebody sowed a dry spot, it grew one-third ripe, and he made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is obligated⁸¹. 14:22. Whether there is a rabbinic obligation to tithe produce grown in a house is a matter of dispute between Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (Ma‘serot 1:10). The position of Maimonides, that the discussion here is only about the biblical obligations, not the rabbinic ones, is supported by the next paragraph, cf. Note 83.; according to the Sages any later growth is free⁸². If he sowed in a house, removed the roof, and then made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is free; according to the Sages any later growth is obligated.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ If somebody took possession of an abandoned field after the grain on it was one-third ripe, R. Aqiba will free the entire harvest from heave and tithes since it was exempt at the time the grain became edible. ⁷⁸ If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple and redeemed it after the grain on it was one-third ripe, R. Aqiba again will free the entire harvest from heave and tithes. In both cases, the Sages require heave and tithes since at harvest and threshing time the field was obligated. ⁷⁹ Fruits of trees are tithed according to the rules valid at the time the fruit started to form; cf. Ševi‘it ⁸⁰ Rice, millet, poppies, and sesame are tithed according to the rules of the time they formed roots, Ševi‘it ⁸¹ Since it is judged by the rules valid at the time it became edible when it was “produce of the field” as required by Deut ⁸² Since at harvest time it is produce of a house, not of a field.

Is there a dispute between Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages even for ḥallah⁸³ is the heave from dough. The problem is Mishnah Ḥallah 2:1: “Produce from outside the Land imported into the Land is subject to ḥallah. Produce exported from here to there, R. Eliezer makes it obligated, R. Aqiba frees it.” The problem is the interpretation of Num. 15:18–19: “Speak to the sons of Israel and tell them: When you come to the Land into which I am bringing you,when you will eat from the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave to the Eternal.” There is a clear biblical obligation if both conditions are satisfied. There is a rabbinic obligation to give ḥallah from any dough anywhere. If only one of the two conditions is satisfied, is the obligation biblical or rabbinical?? What do you want from Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, produce from outside the Land which was imported into the Land is obligated for ḥallah? If Rebbi Aqiba would hold like Rebbi Eliezer, your question would be correct.

footnotes: ⁸³ This cannot refer to the problem of one-third ripe grain since ḥallah

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: He sowed in a flower pot without a hole and made a hole? He said to him, now it has a hole⁸⁴ 5:10, Halakhah Kilaim 7:8. A flower pot without a hole is not subject to the laws governing agriculture in the Land. Since practice follows the Sages, only the status at the time of harvest counts even if the produce grown in the pot is grain..

footnotes: ⁸⁴ A flower pot with a hole standing on the ground is part of the earth and its produce is “produce of the field”; cf. Mishnah Demay

Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel goes with the argument of his ancestor⁸⁵ Rabban Gamliel. As we stated there⁸⁶ 4:7. For Rabban Gamliel, produce grown on the Gentile’s property is Gentile produce.: “Jews who were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria, Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel frees.”

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Why is he not called his father? ⁸⁶ Mishnah Ḥallah

Rebbi said, all according to computation; this refers to the first part [of the Mishnah]⁶⁴.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Rebbi disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and holds that in any case he has to tithe the percentage of the crop added in the Jew’s possession.In the Tosephta (3:14), the anonymous opinion is attributed to R. Aqiba and that of Rebbi to the anonymous Sages.

MISHNAH: He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free⁸⁷. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated. If he found more than his measure he gives proportionally from another place⁸⁸. The holes of ants which were near an obligated heap overnight are obligated since it is obvious that they were dragging from what was processed all night⁹⁴. Baalbek garlic, Rikhpa onion, Cilician grits¹¹¹, and Egyptian lentils, Rebbi Meïr says also colocasia¹¹², Rebbi Yose says also qrṭnym¹¹³ 18:2) for Hebrew קטניות “legumes”. Maimonides describes the fruit as “a kind of pea”. According to Arukh, it is called in Arabic צג̇יר אלאד̇נאב “small of tail”; I. Löw identifies as nelumbo nucifera. are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical¹¹⁴. The seed of the upper part of arum¹¹⁵, the seeds of leeks, seeds of onions, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical¹¹⁶. 25:7). and these may be eaten if their father was heave¹¹⁷ 9:4) applies only to food. Therefore, the growth from inedible seeds from heave of vegetables is profane since it is not growth from heave..

footnotes: ⁸⁷ The Sages hold that the wine he takes out is the water he poured in which only received taste from the pomace, and taste is not taxable. R. Jehudah holds that there was an exchange of fluid between the water and the pomace and now part of the fluid is genuinely subject to heave and tithes. ⁸⁸ This again is the opinion of the anonymous Sages. Even though the additional amount of fluid certainly came from the pomace, it is not wine in the biblical sense. ⁹⁴ Grains found in antholes the day after a heap of grain was smoothed but not yet tithed have to be tithed since they were taken from grain completely processed but not tithed. ¹¹¹ Broken beans. ¹¹² The Rome ms. and the Maimonides autograph of the Mishnah read קרקס. One Genizah ms. and most Tosephta sources (3:15) read קלקס and this seems to be the basis of Maimonides’s identification of the plant as אלקלקאס “colocasia, Egyptian bean”. ¹¹³ This reading has no correspondence in the variant readings of the Mishnah and generally is considered a scribal error of the Leyden ms. The Maimonides autograph reads קוטנין, most other mss. קוטנים; Arabic קֻטנִיַּה “legumes, flour-containing seeds other than grain”. The Arabic is the Gaonic definition (Ahilut ¹¹⁴ These are not cultivated in the Land. ¹¹⁵ The seeds, in contrast to the bulb. ¹¹⁶ Since they are not food, they are not titheable even by rabbinic standards and not covered by the Sabbatical restrictions on “its (the Land’s) yield to eat” (Lev ¹¹⁷ The principle that “growth from heave is heave” (Terumot

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented⁸⁹ 25b/26a, this is the opinion of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. R. Eleazar is reported to hold that the anonymous Sages and R. Jehudah disagree about all kinds of after-wine but that tithing from a different batch is possible only for fermented wine since otherwise the tithe might be invalid, being from one kind for another.. There⁹⁰ 1:7., we have stated: “After-wine before it fermented cannot be bought with money of [Second] Tithe⁹¹. 14:26) “You may spend the money for all your heart’s desire, cattle, sheep, wine, or liquor,or anything you want, eat it there and be merry you and your house.” This has the structure of two general statements divided by a detailed list. Both for R. Ismael and for R. Aqiba, the general statements have to be interpreted in the light of the list; the money may only be spent on food. This excludes water and salt which are not food. Cf. Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4, Notes 144–151. or make a miqweh invalid⁹² 10, Note 139.; after it fermented it may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe and does not make a miqweh invalid.” That Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s since we stated: “He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe⁹³ 27a, this is the opinion of both R. Eleazar and R. Yose ben Ḥanina; in the Yerushalmi, Eruvin 3:1, fol. 20d, this is the opinion of R. Eleazar alone. The Yerushalmi there disagrees with the argument here since R. Aḥa qualifies the statement of R. Eleazar and permits salt water only if some oil is added, turning it into food. In the opinion of the Babli, the Mishnah in Ḥulin cannot be squared with the one in Ma‘serot but represents a third opinion ascribed to R. Joḥanan ben Nuri..

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Unfermented after-wine is simply water. In the Babli, Ḥulin ⁹⁰ Mishnah Ḥulin ⁹¹ Second Tithe which was redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. (Deut ⁹² As water, cf. Terumot ⁹³ In the Babli, Eruvin

What does he give? Tithes! That means, not heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain⁵³, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.

footnotes: ⁵³ The parts of grain that cannot be removed from the straw in threshing.

⁹⁵ 1:8. The text in Ḥallah is somewhat better; it is the original since the second paragraph following belongs only to Ḥallah. The initial statement is also quoted in Ma‘serot Halakhah 4:1. If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state⁹⁶ Mishnah 1:7.: “And similarly women who gave⁹⁷ to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount⁹⁸ is 5/4 standard qab. Even if the total amount of flour the baker turns into sour dough is greater than that amount, there is no obligation of ḥallah since the flour never became his property. This argument is appropriate for questioning R. Joḥanan’s position, not R. Simeon ben Laqish’s. it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount⁹⁹. It introduces an extraneous argument; if the baker makes one big batch of sour dough from the flour and the obligated amount is not recognizable, it is clear that all is obligated.?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it¹⁰⁰, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated¹⁰¹ Mishnah 1:7.: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately¹⁰² 1:8: שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא לְקוּחוֹת וְהוּא חוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶה אוֹתָהּ עִיסָּה. “maybe he will find customers and he uses it immediately for dough”. Maybe the customer buys the sour dough not for making bread at home but for bread the baker will make for him. Then the sour dough is immediate ṭevel by the sale in the baker’s hands. The commentators change the text to: “maybe he will not find a customer and he uses it immediately for dough himself”. This is unnecessary and false since his own sour dough in his own bread dough can be put in order by one ḥallah given when the bread dough is completely kneaded.. He said to him, but was it not stated¹⁰³ 1:8, והא תנינן “did we not state”, formula appropriate for a Mishnah. But it seems that the formula (for a baraita) used here is correct since מחייבת in the Mishnah is replaced by החייבת. (In Ḥallah, one reads only חייבת.) One has to conclude that the reading of the manuscripts, מחייבת, is not a scribal error but a stand-in for מחויבת.: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,⁹⁴” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation¹⁰⁴. Samuel ben Abba¹⁰⁵ said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ This paragraph and the next two are also in Ḥallah ⁹⁶ Ḥallah ⁹⁷ Flour. ⁹⁸ The minimum amount of flour to produce dough subject to ḥallah ⁹⁹ This sentence is missing in Ḥallah ¹⁰⁰ To different people to bake their own bread. ¹⁰¹ First part of Ḥallah ¹⁰² This argument can only be understood by a combination with the text in Ḥallah ¹⁰³ In Ḥallah ⁹⁴ Grains found in antholes the day after a heap of grain was smoothed but not yet tithed have to be tithed since they were taken from grain completely processed but not tithed. ¹⁰⁴ יאוש “resignation” is a technical term for the automatic turning of lost property into ownerless property once the original owners have given up hope for recovery. No declaration of abandonment is needed in that case. Since grains taken by ants have to be considered as abandoned, even if recovered by the original owner they can be subject to heave and tithes only if the tithing of the heap by the original owner also extends to grains not in his possession now. Tithing those grains is tantamount to tithing of another’s property without the latter’s knowledge. ¹⁰⁵ He is Samuel, the head of the Academy of Nahardea. He explains “exempt” not as “already tithed” but “not yet threshed”, so that the ants took not grains but parts of ears. In that case, the grains taken by the ants do not fall under our rules. He also must hold that ערימה in contrast to כרי denotes an unsmoothed heap which is obligated if the owner does not intend to process further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰⁶ 3:7) he follows R. Joḥanan which probably he would not have done if R. Joḥanan disagreed with R. Yose, the preeminent Tanna.: Did we not state¹⁰⁷ 4:5 (Note 81), about a field dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed.: “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and against Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The argument makes sense only as objection from R. Joḥanan to R. Simeon ben Laqish. It seems that Maimonides read in the first paragraph “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan” and in the second “Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish” since in his Code (Ma‘serot ¹⁰⁷ Mishnah Peah

¹⁰⁹ 1:7. Since nobody makes bread out of sour dough without the addition of plain flour, sour dough is not bread dough ready to be baked, is not fully processed, and should not be subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since ¹¹⁰ Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra 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 would in the end return it.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ This paragraph refers to Mishnah Ḥallah ¹¹⁰ The original statement is in Halakhah 1:6 (Note 151) and Halakhah 4:3 (Note 61) and is explained there.

“¹¹⁸ What is Baalbek garlic? Any with only one hole¹¹⁹ surrounding the stem. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any with only one skin¹²⁰. What is Rikhpa onion? Any whose prick is dissolved in it¹²¹. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that has no poison.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ A similar text in Tosephta 3:15. ¹¹⁹ In the Tosephta: “One row”. Garlic not split into several cloves. ¹²⁰ In the Tosephta, this is Rabban Simeon’s definition of Rikhpa onions. ¹²¹ Reading of both mss. of the Yerushalmi. The Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta reads: “Any whose curvature (עוקמו) is dissolved in it.”

¹²² 3:2 (fol. 37d) and Ševuot 3:9 (fol. 34d). Both Yerushalmi mss. agree here on the text. Therefore, the other texts may be used to instruct the text here but not to correct it. These are Cilician grits, these are square¹²³.” The last word is otherwise unknown. Lieberman prefers the reading of the quote from the Yerushalmi in Arukh,s.v. קלקי אילו גסין המרובעים׃ “these are the fat square ones.”. It was stated¹²⁴: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state¹²⁵‘im 6:1. In Ševuot3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Lev. 13:18–23} is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.”: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna¹²⁶ said, that¹²⁷ in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects¹²⁸ הכנעה “lice”.! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila¹²⁹ארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage.! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.

footnotes: ¹²² Essentially the same text is in Nedarim ¹²³ In Tosephta 3:15: “These are Cilician grits: square algosin ¹²⁴ Tosephta 3:15. ¹²⁵ Mishnah Nega ¹²⁶ A fourth generation Amora, student of R. Ila. ¹²⁷ The text of the Mishnah, Note 125 R. Bisna takes the expression “square” in the classical mathematical sense, “determination of the surface area”. The Mishnah requires the minimal surface area of a lesion to be (36)2 (hairwidth)2. If the expression did not have its mathematical sense, the numerical indication would be superfluous. “That” in this sentence is the second sentence of the Mishnah. ¹²⁸ In Nedarim ¹²⁹ In Nedarim

¹²⁴“These are Egyptian lentils: All whose spheres are sharp-edged¹²⁵‘im 6:1. In Ševuot3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Lev. 13:18–23} is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that have no pebbles¹²⁶. What are colocasia? All whose pricks are short and their extensions¹²⁷ are many.” What compares to it? Rebbi Yose said, like these qonyata¹²⁸ הכנעה “lice”..

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Tosephta 3:15. ¹²⁵ Mishnah Nega ¹²⁶ A fourth generation Amora, student of R. Ila. ¹²⁷ The text of the Mishnah, Note 125 R. Bisna takes the expression “square” in the classical mathematical sense, “determination of the surface area”. The Mishnah requires the minimal surface area of a lesion to be (36)2 (hairwidth)2. If the expression did not have its mathematical sense, the numerical indication would be superfluous. “That” in this sentence is the second sentence of the Mishnah. ¹²⁸ In Nedarim

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is crocus¹²⁹ארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage. permitted as aftergrowth? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah asked, did we not state¹³⁰ 4:8. This shows that industrial products which fall under the rules of the Sabbatical fall under all restrictions as if they were food.: “One does not buy flax from anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical, not even combed?” Is flax not like wood chips¹³¹? Rebbi Ḥinena said, because of its seed¹³². Rebbi Mana said, if it were because of its seed, did we not state: “¹³³ 4:9. One does not buy water or salt from anybody suspect of selling heave as profane?” Can you say, water or salt because of their seeds? No, as a fine. Here also as a fine¹³⁴ decree from which no general conclusion can be drawn. Crocus might be permitted as aftergrowth..

footnotes: ¹²⁹ In Nedarim ¹³⁰ Mishnah Bekhorot ¹³¹ It is inedible. ¹³² A source of edible oil. ¹³³ Mishnah Bekhorot ¹³⁴ An ad hoc

Menaḥem ben Maximus the brother of Jonathan Caiphas in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Flax may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. That is, if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden¹³⁵ 4:8.. Zeugos, the relative of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Vetch may be bought from anybody during the Sabbatical. Rebbi Yose said: Does our Mishnah say so? “The upper seed of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of egg plants, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten.” We have stated on this: Seeds of indigo, seeds of madder, and seeds of vetch¹³⁶. That implies, not vetch itself. Maybe if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden¹³⁷.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ The statement of R. Ammi does not contradict Mishnah Bekhorot ¹³⁶ Follow the same rules. ¹³⁷ To buy vetch as animal feed but vetch seed may be bought even from people known to deal in Sabbatical produce.

So is the Mishnah: The seeds on the stem of arum¹³⁸. Some woman had heave purslain on a block. They fell into a garden and sprouted. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan who permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, is this not the Mishnah: “And these may be eaten if their father was heave?” He said to him, Babylonian, when you cleared a potsherd for yourself, you found a pearl! You said, is that not the Mishnah!

footnotes: ¹³⁸ This is the reading and interpretation of Maimonides. The other interpretations (R. Isaac Simponti, R. Simson) have to rearrange the sentence except for R. Isaac Simponti’s second explanation, “the seeds of the thorns of arum,” which does not fit reality since arum, an aracea, has no thorns.