MISHNAH: Rectangles¹ field of grain” would be redundant.] Since מַלְבֵּן is a masculine word with a feminine plural, the gender of the numeral “one” in the Mishnah is undetermined and different manuscripts and prints vary between אחד ,אחת, usually not in a consistent manner. of grain between olive trees²: The House of Shammai say, peah from each single one, the House of Hillel say, from one for all of them. They agree³ that one gives one peah for all of them if the edges of the rows are touching. If someone harvests his field in spots and leaves moist stalks, Rebbi Aqiba says, peah from each spot, but the Sages say, from one for all of them. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill or mustard at three different places gives peah from each spot²⁰.

footnotes: ¹ This is the interpretation of Maimonides. R. Simson of Sens prefers to derive מלבן from לבן, “white”; a “white field” by definition is one of grain or legumes. [Then “a white ² The Halakhah will explain that the disagreement is only for a standard field; there is no disagreement on fields planted wider or narrower than the standard. ³ The House of Shammai accept the position of the House of Hillel. ²⁰ This is explained in Chapter 2, Notes 17–19.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.⁴” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah⁵, a general statement “fruit trees” includes (as a majority) those that are not subject to peah. even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.

footnotes: ⁴ Even though Rebbi edited the generally accepted Mishnah, either later generations changed the wording or, more likely, Rebbi insisted in his Yeshivah that in addition to the official Mishnah one would retain a more general version. ⁵ Since only the trees enumerated in Mishnah 1:5 are subject to peah

What are we dealing with? ⁶ 3:9) seems to have been: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Hillel will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Shammai will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted,” inverting the roles of Shammai and Hillel in the first clause. But the version of R. Abraham ben David (loc. cit.) is: “If they are widely spaced, also the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to densely planted ones, the House of Hillel compare it to widely spaced,” inverting the statements in the second clause. There is no direct manuscript evidence of any Yerushalmi manuscript for one reading over the other. If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them⁷. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one⁸ must be well separated from the trees); hence, each patch is a separate field.. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah⁹. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced¹⁰, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones¹².

footnotes: ⁶ This text is self-contradictory; it is the confluence of two contradictory texts. The text of Maimonides (Hilkhot Mattenot Aniïm ⁷ Following R. Abraham ben David, the House of Shammai will agree that there are too few trees to make a difference; it is one field with some holes. ⁸ Since there are few open places large enough to allow wheat to be sown (which by the laws of kilaim ⁹ See Chapter 2, Notes 31,73. ¹⁰ This follows the text of Maimonides who argues that with widely spaced trees the owner could have sown one field. The fact that he chose to make separate rectangles proves that he wants to treat them as separate fields. (Maimonides translates מלבן by “rectangle.”) ¹² Hence, each spot sown is a separate field. R. David ben Zimra, in his commentary to Maimonides, points out that this argument supports Maimonides’s reading in the preceding paragraph. “Seeds” usually refers to grain.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? People do not usually introduce seeds between trees¹². Does it turn out that the House of Shammai are like Rebbi Yose¹³? Just as Rebbi Yose said that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables¹⁴ from each bed, but the Sages say: From one bed for all of them.” According to R. Yose, onions are detrimental to other vegetables growing near them., so the House of Shammai say that people do not usually introduce seeds between trees! It is reasonable to say that the House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai¹⁵. The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Yose that people do not usually introduce onions between vegetables. Rebbi Yose will not agree with the House of Shammai because people usually introduce seeds between trees.

footnotes: ¹² Hence, each spot sown is a separate field. R. David ben Zimra, in his commentary to Maimonides, points out that this argument supports Maimonides’s reading in the preceding paragraph. “Seeds” usually refers to grain. ¹³ Since Rebbi Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) was the leading authority of his generation in the tradition of the House of Hillel, this would be remarkable indeed. ¹⁴ This refers to the second part of Mishnah 4 in this chapter: “Rectangular beds of onions planted among other vegetables, R. Yose says: Peah ¹⁵ In a poor country, the land between trees is much too valuable to be left lying fallow. Hence, everybody will sow between the trees if at all possible.

If there was a fence there, it is like a tree¹⁶. How about two¹⁷ for all? The question is asked but not answered [which for practical purposes is a negative answer.]?

footnotes: ¹⁶ If each tree has 250 square cubits around it, one follows the House of Hillel’s opinion in the Mishnah. ¹⁷ If there are two fences, do the House of Hillel still allow one peah

So far¹⁸ if the beds grown from seeds are connected at more than one place. if they are combined from one side and the other. If they were combined only on one side, either by three coarse furrows¹⁹ or at any place?

footnotes: ¹⁸ This refers to the last clause of the Mishnah, that one gives only one peah ¹⁹ See Chapter 2, Note 33. Is it necessary that the beds touch in the width of three coarse furrows or is any contact acceptable? The answer here again is not given, which means for practical purposes that it is negative.

“He who harvests his field in spots,” etc. Like a spotted field²²; the place where fertilizer makes plants grow early is called “spotted.”

footnotes: ²² The leopard is נמר in Hebrew; the Mishnah means: He who makes his field look like a leopard. The Talmud notes that a field which is fertilized unevenly and, hence, whose growth is spotty, is called in agricultural terminology נימרה "leopard-like." It is not clear whether we talk only of a field that is growing at different rates at different points (and, therefore, cannot be harvested at one time) or also of a field that looks normal but whose owner harvests in spots so that it looks "leopard like" at harvest time.

So far if it was dry on both sides and moist in the middle²³. How about being moist on both sides and dry in the middle²⁴.)?

footnotes: ²³ Since grain usually is harvested when dry, in the case contemplated the farmer will legitimately harvest the dry sides and leave the green patch in the middle for a later harvest. In this case, R. Aqiba will consider the separate dry patches as separate fields since they can be harvested separately without difficulty. ²⁴ In this case, access to the ripe grain is difficult and one may wonder whether R. Aqiba will insist that the cutting is a separate harvest. The question is not resolved (since practice follows the majority of the “Sages”, including most of R. Aqiba’s own surviving students, about whom see the Introduction to tractate Berakhot

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya²⁶ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Meïr follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says that moist and dry are two different kinds, so Rebbi Meïr²⁷ twice. says that moist and dry are two different kinds.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: Why should he argue like Rebbi Aqiba? He could argue even like the Rabbis since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:3): “He who rips out²⁸ moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage²⁹ twice.!” Rebbi Yose answered: We understand that market and storage make two kinds, are moist and dry two kinds³⁰?

footnotes: ²⁶ The tradents are R. Abba bar R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and his father. ²⁷ Who in Mishnah 2:1 asserted that if somebody cuts part of his grain green for fodder and part of it dry for grain he has to give peah ²⁸ See the lexical explanation in the next Mishnah. ²⁹ He has to give peah ³⁰ Hence, R. Meïr agrees with R. Aqiba, not with the other Sages.

Two kinds, half moist and half dry, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree³¹ is due. This argument cannot apply to spot cutting.. But did we not state³²: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he who sows dill and mustard at three different places³³ for each part separately. …” It is so³⁴, 2nd ed., Jerusalem 1964, pp. 441–508.: Either dill at three places or mustard at three places³⁵ mustard” found in the Parma and one of the Genizah manuscripts of the Mishnah. It is explained that any one kind of spice triggers the special rule of peah for spice beds.. Samuel says, because the first one does not wait for the last one³⁶ at all. Hence, Samuel restricts the meaning of the Mishnah to dill and mustard only; these kinds are mentioned for themselves and not as paradigms.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they usually are being sown bed by bed³⁷. According to Samuel, he has to give from each stalk³⁸; according to Rebbi Joḥanan he has to give from each bed.

footnotes: ³¹ If a connected part of the field is already dry and ready for harvesting, even R. Aqiba will agree that then the harvest is the start of the harvest of the entire field and only one peah ³² Mishnah 3:2 ³³ He gives peah ³⁴ The Yerushalmi expression כיני is discussed at length in J. N. Epstein, Mavo lenosaḥ hammišnah ³⁵ Even though both the Mishnah and its quote in the Halakhah read “or”, it seems that the argument refers to the reading “dill and ³⁶ Dill and mustard are special in that they cannot be harvested at one time. If they did not fall under the general category of legumes there would be no obligation of peah ³⁷ Spices are grown in small quantities. Hence, each bed is a separate field. For R. Johanan, dill and mustard are given as paradigms; the rule of the Mishnah applies to all spices. ³⁸ This is almost impossible and implies a rejection of Samuel’s argument.

MISHNAH: He who rips out³⁹. 41:7. According to R. Simson of Sens, it means either “leaves a bald spot” where the onions have been taken out or it means “splits” his field into two parts; it is possible that the expression is intentionally ambiguous. [In Mishnah Arakhin 1:3, the word means “to finish, to play the final coda.”] In Arabic, חלק means “to shave”; this supports the first interpretation of R. Simson, also supported by Mishnah Ševiït 4:4 which explains that “thinning” means taking out single plants but “ripping out” means pulling at least three together, leaving a bald spot. moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage gives peah for each batch separately; the same applies to peas⁴⁰ (Mishnah Peah 1:4). and vineyards⁴¹. He who thins out gives peah for what is left⁴². He who rips out with one hand⁴³ from these green onions. But if he rips out only a few at a time with one hand, at the end, at the time of the harvest of the fully ripe onions for storage, he gives peah also for the volume of those green ones that he took occasionally. gives from the remainder for everything.

footnotes: ³⁹ This translation is tentative; according to Maimonides it simply means “cuts”, based on Is ⁴⁰ Peas grown for meal. Those grown to be eaten as vegetable are not subject to the laws of peah ⁴¹ Table grapes are considered different from grapes used either for wine making or for raisins. ⁴² Since thinning is necessary for the better growth of many kinds, the plants taken out in thinning are not considered harvested. ⁴³ The meaning of this expression is not clear. According to Maimonides, it means “taking from one side only”. According to Rabbenu Simson, it means “taking from one kind only”. The sentence may refer to the start of the Mishnah: If somebody harvests young onions to sell them green with their leaves, he has to give peah

HALAKHAH: It is stated⁴⁵ 1:9.: “In patches⁴⁶ p. 131), אורּגא is the Syriac translation of ברוד “having white spots.” Z. Frankel refers the word here to Aramaic מרג “escape control”, which does not make sense. J. Levy refers to Arabic מַרַגַ “to be, to get into disorder”, to which one may add מַרג “pasture”. it is obligated at the beginning and at the end.” What is “in patches?” Rebbi Jeremiah said, just as we have stated: “He who rips out moist onions for the market and keeps dry ones for storage.” Rebbi Yose⁴⁷; only if part of the field is left to produce onions for storage does the obligation of peah fall on the entire field. said, for example nigella: If one sows it, it produces thin bulbs; if one plants seedlings, it produces large bulbs. For if it were not so, we would say because it is for sowing⁴⁸ seed, all will be taken out for replanting. Hence, by Mishnah 1:4, it should not be subject to peah. However, since the seeds of the strong plant will be stored as spice, it is subject to peah in every harvest. it should be freed from peah. But are wheat grains not also for sowing? Wheat is mostly for eating, that one⁴⁹ does not produce usable spice. is mostly for sowing. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, are vegetables subject to peah⁵⁰ for green onions even if the field does not produce any onions for storage. This contradicts Mishnah 1:4.? Its kind is collected for storage. How does Rebbi Yose deal with it⁵¹? It is finished and needs only to dry out.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Tosephta Peah ⁴⁶ The text of the Tosephta reads: He who harvests in “patches.” According to S. Lieberman (Tosefta kifšutah Peah ⁴⁷ R. Yose (the Amora) disagrees with R. Jeremiah and asserts that green onions are not in themselves subject to peah ⁴⁸ In the first phase, when the plot is sown with nigella ⁴⁹ Sown nigella ⁵⁰ Since by equating Mishnah and Tosephta he declares an obligation of peah ⁵¹ The problem of green onions.

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking⁵². Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects⁵² ears for his dough in any quantity⁵³ is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle⁵⁴. Rebbi Yose⁵⁵ said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house⁵⁶, he is free from fallen berries⁵⁷, from orlah, from the fourth year⁵⁸ is the yield of the first three years of a newly planted tree that is forbidden for all use; the yield of the fourth year must be eaten in Jerusalem (or it may be redeemed and the money brought to Jerusalem) if there is a Temple. These obligations do not depend on the harvest; hence, they cannot belong to the text. Even though this text is found in both manuscripts of the Yerushalmi, it is not in the Tosephta where the reading is: he is free from fallen berries, forgotten sheaves, and peah. This is also the text implied by both Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (הלכות מתנות עניים 4:27) and the mention of peah is implied by the discussion here. The corruption must have crept into a manuscript from which both the Leyden and the Rome manuscripts are derived. The Tosephta does not mention a remainder; this seems to contradict R. Yasa., but he is obligated for gleanings⁵⁹. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe⁶⁰ may be fulfilled., one for those which are not fully ripe⁶¹ is not due.. Rebbi Yose⁶² said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There⁶³ if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here⁶⁴ if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them⁶⁵ as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine⁶⁶ [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

footnotes: ⁵² By hand. ⁵² By hand. ⁵³ In the Babli this expression would mean “a minimal quantity.” In the Yerushalmi it means “a quantity of indeterminate size.” ⁵⁴ It is not a harvest unless some is collected for storage, not if everything is used for immediate consumption. ⁵⁵ The Amora who in the Yerushalmi is known usually as R. Yasa and in the Babli as R. Assi. ⁵⁶ Not to the winepress to make wine or to his roof to make raisins. ⁵⁷ Berries fallen from the grape bunches during harvest, which may not be taken by the harvesters but must be left for the poor. ⁵⁸ Orlah ⁵⁹ Single berries which do not grow either in a bunch or in a row. They may not be harvested and must be left for the poor. Since they belong to the poor from the moment of their formation, the manner of harvesting is irrelevant. ⁶⁰ Then any collecting is harvesting and a remnant is necessary so that the obligation of peah ⁶¹ Then peah ⁶² Ben Zabida, the late Amora. ⁶³ Without remainder. ⁶⁴ A remainder is required for wine grapes. ⁶⁵ Ears of grain. Eaten as a snack directly from the field. ⁶⁶ Even if the grapes are squeezed by hand to produce grape juice in the house.

“He who thins out gives peah for what is left⁶⁷.” It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:10): Rebbi Jehudah said: When has this been said? If he thins for sale⁶⁸. Nobody requires peah for thinnings that are discarded., but if he thins for his own use he gives from the remnant for everything⁶⁹. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means⁷⁰ for marketable thinnings if they are marketed., if he sowed thickly in order to thin later. But if he sowed thickly without intention to thin later, not only if he uses it for himself but even for the market he gives from the remnant for everything.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Quote from the Mishnah. ⁶⁸ The plants taken in thinning, even if they are marketable as produce, are certainly only vegetable that in its kind is never stored and, hence, is free from the obligation of peah ⁶⁹ Because this is the use of the produce of the field for which it was planted. ⁷⁰ That he does not have to give peah

MISHNAH: Mother onions⁷¹ are subject to peah, Rebbi Yose frees. Rectangles of onions among vegetables, Rebbi Yose says peah from each single one, but the Sages say from one for everything⁷².

footnotes: ⁷¹ The Halakhah will try to explain this expression. ⁷² For this controversy, see Halakhah 2.

HALAKHAH: Rav says pvrgrh⁷¹, Samuel says sproutings⁷².

footnotes: ⁷¹ The Halakhah will try to explain this expression. ⁷² For this controversy, see Halakhah 2.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abun⁷³ in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose said only because of ownerless property⁷⁴ since it cannot be called produce of your field.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Mana: Is abandoned property obligated for peah? He said to them: When he reacquired them one by one⁷⁵. But did we not state: Even though one with a large harvest will not store the mother-onions, one with only a small harvest will. Hence, the reason⁷⁶ is only that he collects them for storing⁷⁷.

footnotes: ⁷³ A third generation Amora, student of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina. ⁷⁴ Since these “mother onions” are worthless according to both definitions, anybody may pick them up. Abandoned property is not subject to peah ⁷⁵ If the owner reasserted his right to these onions after they sprouted new growth they are not abandoned property. ⁷⁶ Of the Sages. ⁷⁷ The difference between Rebbi Yose and the Sages is a difference of opinion on matters of agricultural practice rather than on the theory of abandoned property.

MISHNAH: Brothers who split⁷⁸.] give two peot. When they later form a cooperative, they give one peah⁷⁹135b) notes that Lev. 19:9 reads: “When you (plural) harvest the harvest of your (plural) land, do not finish to cut the corner of your (singular) field.” This is taken to mean that peah is due from the owner, individual or collective [but not, as pointed out by Sifra Qedošim 1(11), if not all shareholders in the collective are Jews.]. Two people who together bought a tree give one peah. If one bought the North side and the other the South side, each gives peah for himself⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ The inheritance. [Since an unspecified plural has a minimum of 2 but no maximum, such a plural in legal texts always means “2”. The text should read: Two brothers who divided up an inheritance give two peot ⁷⁹ The Babylonian Talmud (Ḥulin ⁸⁰ Even though the care for the tree must necessarily be a common endeavor, only the property relationship matters.

HALAKHAH: ⁸¹ If he harvested half a field in company [with his brother] and then they split up, he⁸² 2:16), the entire sentence speaks about a man who took the harvested grain as his part and left the standing grain to his brother. He does not have to give peah for his part since the obligation rests on the standing grain and, if his brother would have cut the rest of the field without leaving peah, he cannot be asked to contribute to the peah that now has to be given from cut grain since he had no ownership rights at the time the last grain was cut. does not give from his own part either for the initial harvest or for the final one. When they changed their minds and after splitting formed a company and harvested half a field, and then separated again, he can give from his part at the end for his partner’s part at the end⁸³, but not from his part at the start for his partner’s part at the start⁸⁴ cannot cross ownership lines..

footnotes: ⁸¹ In the Venice print, this sentence belongs to the previous Halakhah. It is the consensus of all commentators that it belongs to Halakhah 5. ⁸² According to Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm ⁸³ Since his part is simply his part in the company proceeds, all he gives originally was company property. ⁸⁴ When each of them was a separate owner of half a field, since giving peah

Rebbi Joḥanan said: If he wanted to cut half of his field and actually cut⁸⁵ starts with the first cut. But since at that point he intended only to cut half of his field, the second part has to be considered a separate field and, therefore, the obligation falls only on the first part of the field. half of this half, but when he came to cut the other half he finished off his entire field, then he may give from the first cut on the intermediate ones⁸⁶ and from the intermediate ones on the first but not from the first⁸⁷ on the first⁸⁸. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If he had a field where half of it was one third ripe⁸⁹. If he now has the intention of harvesting his field when it is one-third ripe, it is as if the field were divided into two fields. The explanation of this sentence is then completely parallel to that of the preceding statement of R. Joḥanan., the other half was not yet one third ripe, and by the time he finished harvesting half of the first half, the entire field also was one third ripe, he gives from the first cut on the intermediate ones and from the intermediate ones on the first⁹⁰ 2:17) reads: “And from the intermediate ones on the first and the last”. He seems to argue that the first split was by nature, not by the farmer’s design; a change in nature changes the status and at the time of the second harvest the field was counted as one again. But the first cut of the first part cannot be used to free those parts of the field that were not yet a crop at the time of cutting. Since R. Abraham ben David does not disagree, both must have read “and the last” in the text of the Yerushalmi. but not from the first on the first.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ As explained in Halakhah 1:1, the obligation of peah ⁸⁶ I. e., the remainder of the first part that was not harvested the first time. ⁸⁷ The first cutting of the first part of the field. ⁸⁸ The first cutting of the second part of the field, that now represents a new field. ⁸⁹ Grain that is less than one third ripe is not grain in any commercial sense. Once it is one-third ripe it may be used either for animal feed or for human consumption as Grünkern ⁹⁰ Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm

MISHNAH: He who sells tree trunks⁹¹ 3:18), the rule applies to any sale, not only of trees or tree roots, but even of standing grain. in his field gives peah from each single one. Rebbi Jehudah says, when? If the owner of the field did not retain anything, but if he retained his field, he gives peah for all of them⁹².

footnotes: ⁹¹ According to Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm ⁹² See the first and last notes to the next paragraph.

HALAKHAH: So far when he started harvesting beforehand⁹³ (see Halakhah 1:1). Hence, the obligation of the seller can be satisfied only if he disposes of the entire field. The discussion centers on R. Jehudah’s clarification.; even if he did not start to harvest? Let us understand it from the following (Mishnah Ḥulin 11:2): “If he bought the shearings⁹⁴ of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable⁹⁵. 18:4., otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s⁹⁶. Is there a difference? There, both if he started to shear or if he did not start to shear⁹⁷, and here there will be no difference whether he started harvesting beforehand or did not start beforehand⁹⁸ 138a), both Rav Ḥisda and Rava agree that peah is due only if the harvest started since it says (Lev. 19:9): “When you harvest the harvest of your land.” But the obligation of giving the first wool to the Cohen exists independent of the act of shearing. Hence, the Babli negates the conclusion of the Yerushalmi here..

footnotes: ⁹³ If the seller started harvesting, the first cut establishes the obligation of peah ⁹⁴ I. e., the right to shear the sheep at a specified time in the future. ⁹⁵ To give the first shearings to a Cohen, Deut ⁹⁶ Although nobody seems to object to R. Jehudah’s clarification, the Yerushalmi does not accept the thesis of the Babli that all statements of R. Jehudah starting with “when?” are undisputed practice. In any case, it looks as if the underlying principle was the same. ⁹⁷ Will the seller be liable as long as he retains any wool for himself. ⁹⁸ In the Babli (Ḥulin

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain? Or because he sold to him, excluding his obligation⁹⁹ for the harvest sold.? Let us understand it from the following: “If he bought the shearings of another man’s sheep, if the seller retained anything, the seller is liable, otherwise the buyer is liable.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Could you say there that the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain¹⁰⁰, where the verse requires that the farmer refrain from cutting the last corner of his field, the obligation to give from the fleece to the Cohen is formulated in terms of shearing; the obligation does not exist as long as the wool is still on the sheep’s back.? No, it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation! And here also it is because he sold to him, excluding his obligation¹⁰¹..

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Unless explicitly stated, the buyer does not acquire the obligations attached to the property bought. Hence, the seller is assumed to have adjusted the asking price so that it covers the cost of peah ¹⁰⁰ In contrast to peah ¹⁰¹ Otherwise, R. Joḥanan would be in error asserting the identity of the principles underlying the Mishnah here and in Ḥulin

What is the difference between them¹⁰²? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave¹⁰³ may be given at the start, the middle, and the end of the harvest, it is legal peah but does not concern the seller.. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him¹⁰⁴ for his part, if he informs the seller that the latter may reduce the amount he has to give, the buyer may ask for indemnity for the reduction of the seller’s obligation.. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned¹⁰⁵ from his part since the seller cannot do it for him.. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he¹⁰⁶ from what he bought, has regress on the seller for the amount of produce which goes into peah. may collect money from him.

footnotes: ¹⁰² What are the practical differences that make it necessary for us to decide between the two possible explanations for R. Jehudah’s statement? ¹⁰³ Since peah ¹⁰⁴ The buyer may collect from the seller. Since the buyer has fulfilled the obligation of peah ¹⁰⁵ And the buyer must give peah ¹⁰⁶ The buyer, who bought unincumbered harvest and now has to give peah

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, a plot of a bet rova‘¹⁰⁷ is obligated for peah. Rebbi Joshua says, if its yield is two seah¹⁰⁸ = 6 qab = 24 log. One log is probably 533 cm³. This makes the seah equal to .452 cubic feet (12.8 dm³) and two seah about .9 cubic feet (25.6 dm³).. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, six by six hand-breadths109. Rebbi Joshua¹¹⁰) on the upper Tigris, today Urfa in Turkey. However, enough manuscripts from different sources have “R. Joshua” to suggest that the name should not be changed. ben Bathyra said, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time¹¹¹; see the discussion at the start of Halakha 1:1.; practice follows his words.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ See Chapter 2, Note 31. ¹⁰⁸ He makes the obligation depend not on the size of the plot but the volume of the yield. Hence, the minimal size would vary with the type of grain grown. One seah ¹¹⁰ This Tanna is not known from any other source. Some Mishnah manuscripts have “R. Jehudah ben Bathyra”, referring to a Tanna of the third generation from Nisibis (Neẓivin ¹¹¹ The first use of sickle or scythe starts the harvest; the amount left for the second cut then can be peah

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field¹¹². 19:9, 23:22, speaking of peah.” and it says about kilaim “your field¹¹³. 19:19: “Your field you shall not sow with two different kinds.” It is assumed that a word in the Books of Moses never changes its meaning.”. Just as “your field” mentioned there¹¹⁴ 2:10 states that two fields of different crops become forbidden if planted too closely one to the other but only if they are the minimum size of bet rova‘. means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two¹¹⁵. Similarly, Mishnah 6:6 states that a forgotten part of the field is not for the poor if its yield is at least 2 seah. Rebbi Joshua seems to argue that anything that is not a field for the definition of leqeṭ (collecting grain forgotten be the farmer) and šiḵḥah(collecting forgotten sheaves) cannot be a field for the definition of peah since all three obligations always go together., so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch¹¹⁶ 3:1, the standard vegetable patch for intensive cultivation is defined as being one square cubit. R. Eliezer either is of the opinion that no vegetables are grown for storage or that onions grown for storage are such a rare case that one may take grain fields as the standard for everything. R. Ṭarphon seems to think that the smallest plot used to grow any plant for storage is the standard for all crops.. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount¹¹⁷. The question is only whether the harvest has to be professional or whether simple plucking is enough. The verse from Psalms is taken to mean that only a cut that will fill at least the hollow of one’s hand qualifies for “harvesting.” This argument is the base of the first discussion in Halakhah 1:1.? Since it is written (Ps. 129:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

footnotes: ¹¹² Lev ¹¹³ Lev ¹¹⁴ Mishnah Kilaim ¹¹⁵ Mishnah 6:5 states that a forgotten sheaf is for the poor only if it is less in volume than two seah ¹¹⁶ In Mishnah Kilaim ¹¹⁷ R. Joshua ben Bathyra argues that the verse: “When you harvest the harvest of your land,” means all kinds of harvest and that therefore any plot which can be harvested is subject to peah

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba says: Any real estate¹¹⁸ is subject to peah and first fruits¹¹⁹, to write a prozbol¹²⁰ based on it, and to acquire simultaneously non-guaranteed property¹²¹ “transfer of property to another person.”] with money or contract or possession¹²²; the exact and restrictive definition of enforceable squatters’ rights is one of the topics of tractate Baba Batra.. If someone signs over his properties¹⁴⁸ when bedridden and reserved for himself any real estate, his gift is permanent¹⁴⁹; if he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent¹⁵⁰. If he signs over his properties to his sons and signs over some real estate for his wife, she lost her ketubah¹⁵¹ is a mortgage on the husband’s entire property, to be paid to the wife at the termination of the marriage, after divorce or after the husband’s death. It represents the financial obligation of the husband to his wife; without such an obligation, any sexual relations between man and wife are considered illicit. The value of the obligation was fixed at 200 zuz(800 silver denars) for a virgin and 100 zuz (400 silver denars) for a previously married woman. A measure of the intended value of these sums is found in Mishnah 8:8,9, viz., that anyone with 200 zuz investment capital or 50 zuz business capital is living above the poverty line and barred from receiving charity. The Halakhah explains the circumstances under which the wife may agree to be co-heir to the sons. The Mishnah appears in the context of the power of contracts involving real estate; the first part belongs to the matters treated in Baba Batra and Giṭṭin, the second part to Ketubot.. Rebbi Yose¹⁵² says, if she accepted it, even if it was not in a written document, she lost her ketubah.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Even if its area is a fraction of a square inch. ¹¹⁹ If it is used for agriculture. ¹²⁰ Greek προσβολή, ή, "falling upon, application." As a legal term, "in an auction, document recording the knocking down of a lot to a purchaser" (L. S.). Only in the Babli does the word appear with ס instead of ז; the etymology proposed would require s and not ζ but this may be a matter of local dialect. Prozbol was instituted by Hillel as a way to circumvent the annulment of debts in the Seventh Year in cases when that annulment would only be a rabbinic ordinance. Since only debts due to real persons are annulled by the Seventh Year, the creditor may deliver the debt to the court to be collected. Since the court is not a real person, the debt is not subject to annulment. The document may be written only as a lien on real estate. The details of prozbol are given in tractate Gittin. ¹²¹ Real estate is always sold with a title guarantee unless explicitly disclaimed. If the buyer loses the land he bought, either for lack of a valid title or because of a foreclosure of a pre-existing mortgage, he has regress on all other real estate owned by the seller. [The technical term אחריות “warranty” is אַחֵרָיוּת, corresponding to Latin alienatio ¹²² Movable property can be acquired only by some act of taking possession, either actual or symbolic. This is necessary in order to determine the exact moment when responsibility for the article is transferred, to avoid situations in which the seller takes the money and then claims that the article was lost in an accident, leaving the buyer without any chance to prove that it was lost when the responsibility was the seller’s. However, since buying real estate is a stronger form of contract, a contract or understanding to buy real estate can be extended to include movables. In that case, the moment of transfer of property rights to the real estate is determining also for the movables. The ways of acquiring real estate are either a contract witnessed by two witnesses, or payment of cash in front of witnesses, or a court ruling confirming squatters’ rights. The general theory of these matters is discussed in tractate Qiddušin ¹⁴⁸ In a gift document. ¹⁴⁹ Since he reserved property, the document is a gift and not a will, on condition that it was executed under all conditions of a valid gift. ¹⁵⁰ If he did not reserve anything for himself, it is clear that he did not expect to survive. If he survives nevertheless, the entire document becomes void. ¹⁵¹ The ketubah ¹⁵² The Tanna, ben Ḥalaphta.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi¹²³, pp. 76,85. asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left!¹²⁴. If the plot is only big enough for one plant, there can never be an obligation since this would fall on the harvest, not on the bare earth. Hence, R. Aqiba also should be giving a minimal size of the plot which might carry an obligation of peah. The answer is that there might be a plant with multiple ears which is not cut but an ear of which is plucked. Then something is left on which the obligation might fall and R. Aqiba is justified. (Cf. the second paragraph in Halakhah 1:1.) Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears!

footnotes: ¹²³ He is Rebbi Ammi, cf. Berakhot ¹²⁴ The question refers to the rule of Rebbi Aqiba, that even the tiniest amount of real estate carries an obligation of peah

Rebbi Mana asked: Why does he not say: “Any crop is subject to peah?¹²⁵ is not a tax on the soil but on plants which grow on it, should not the principle be formulated in terms of the crop? The answer is that then one would need two separate sentences, one for peah and one for first fruits since only fruits of “your land” may be brought (Bikkurim1:2). Since the Mishnah was transmitted orally, that would make memorization much more difficult; a slight deviation from purely logical organization is therefore justified. The ease of memorization is a recognized principle in the formulation of Tannaïtic material.” But because he has to enunciate first fruits he formulates it as “real estate.”

footnotes: ¹²⁵ This is a continuation of the previous question. If peah

It was stated: “And the appearance¹²⁶.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who owns no real estate is freed from the appearance. Rebbi Mana asked: And why do we not say: He who has no real estate is freed from the declaration¹²⁷ 26a and Baba Batra 150b it is clear that in old Mishnah texts, the reading was that any real estate obligates its owner “for peah, first fruits, and declaration.” They negate the last term since they read it as referring to the declaration to be made in the Temple that the tithes of the last three years were given as required. Since tithes are due also from a tenant farmer or a sharecropper and, in case the farmer did not give tithes, even from the buyer of grain, and, in addition, the text does not require “tithes from your land,” there is no place for this clause in the Mishnah. The reference in Deut. 26:15 is to את האדמה אשר נתת לנו. Nachmanides quotes an explanation that the “declaration” is the one required for first fruits (Deut. 26:3–10); he is followed by Meïri and R. Yom Tov ben Abraham Al-Išbili. The reference would be to Deut. 26:10: האדמה אשר נתת לי. There is no verse מן האדמה אשר נתת לנו., since it is written (Deut. 26:15): “From the land that You gave us.¹²⁸” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun¹²⁹ taught a tradition in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “He who has no real estate is freed from the declaration, since it is written: From the land that You gave us.”

footnotes: ¹²⁶ In the Temple, see Mishnah 1:1, note 4. ¹²⁷ From Rashi and R. Samuel ben Meïr (Rashbam) in Babli Qiddušin ¹²⁸ The text is slightly misquoted; it should read: “And the Land that You gave us.” ¹²⁹ What R. Mana put forward as a possibility is a tradition for R. Yose bar Abun.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who has no real estate is free from the appearance since it is said (Ex. 34:24): “Nobody will illegally desire your land¹³⁰.” It happened that one person left his grain heap¹³¹; when he returned, he found lions surrounding it. It happened that one left a chicken coop; when he returned, he found torn cats before it. One man left his house open; when he came, he found a snake rolled up on its tail¹³². Rebbi Phineas told the following story: Two brothers in Askalon had Gentile neighbors. These said, if those Jews go up to Jerusalem, we will take all they have. When they went up, the Holy One, praise to Him, alotted to them two angels who came and went in their likeness. When they returned, they sent them¹³³ valuable presents. They said to them: where have you been? They said to them, in Jerusalem. They said to them: Whom did you leave in your house? They said, nobody. They said: Praised be the God of the Jews Who did not let us act and did not abandon them!

footnotes: ¹³⁰ “When you go up to appear before the Eternal, your God, three times in the year.” ¹³¹ Unprotected. ¹³² Greek κέρκος, ἡ “tail of an animal” (Explanation of De Rossi.) ¹³³ In the entire story from here on, the singular is frequently used for the plural. This happens in several Yerushalmi passages.

From where that non-guaranteed property¹³⁵ may be acquired with guaranteed property¹³⁶, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose¹³⁷ 26a–27a; there, the verse is simply quoted by Ḥizqiah himself. in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah¹³⁸.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer¹³⁹ 9:9, Babli Baba Batra 156b, and in Tosephta Baba Batra 10:12. The corresponding Mishnah, Baba Batra 9:9 reads R. Eliezer in the Yerushalmi and also in the Munich manuscript of the Babli, as well as in the Venice and Lublin prints. It was changed to R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in modern prints of the Babli, following the reading at one place in Babli Qiddušin, on the authority of Rabbenu Tam (Tosaphot Baba Batra 156a) for stylistic reasons. However, the overwhelming majority of manuscript sources must have priority over arguments concerning style. said to them, it happened that a man from Madon¹⁴⁰ 11:1. The man was in Jerusalem, fell ill, and wanted to distribute his property to people in his home town, other than the legal heirs. was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that¹⁴¹ except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock¹⁴², he bought land the size of a sela‘, i. e., a tetradrachma, a silver coin about the size of a quarter. A pun may be intended, since Hebrew סלע also means “rock”.) near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words¹⁴³. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden¹⁴⁴? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis¹⁴⁵ 9:9, R. Eliezer (Bavli in some versions R. Eleazar) explicitly states that bedridden persons are not exempt from the stringent rules of transfer; he does not allow oral bequests..

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Movables, which cannot have a title guarantee. ¹³⁶ Real estate. ¹³⁷ He is Rebbi Yasa, Assi. The entire paragraph is paralleled in Babli Qiddušin ¹³⁸ The language implies that the gift of valuables was contingent on the gift of cities. ¹³⁹ Reading in the Yerushalmi and Baba Batra ¹⁴⁰ A town in Galilee, on the heights overlooking the sea of Galilee, mentioned Joshua ¹⁴¹ Transfer movable property as gift without the recipients taking possession at least symbolically. ¹⁴² A cheap piece of land without practical use. (In one interpretation in the Babli Baba Batra ¹⁴³ It seems that the legal heirs went to court to annul the distribution. Since the amphoras could not be placed on the rock, it is clear that real estate and movables were at different places. ¹⁴⁴ Many rules of transfer and wills are waved for seriously sick persons to assure them that their orders will be obeyed. The first example given by R. Ḥanania is generally accepted; the second one is then offered as interpretation of this Tosephta, that acquisition of movables remote from the land transferred might be valid only for bedridden persons. ¹⁴⁵ In Mishnah Baba Batra

There, we have stated¹⁴⁶ 9:9, where “there”, i. e., Peah, makes sense.: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits.” What is the use of “any” real estate¹⁴⁷ 26b) asks the same question after quoting R. Eliezer; the answer given here by R. Mattaniah is there ascribed to Rav Ashi, a late Amora. But the Babli adds another lengthy discussion whose explicit outcome is that movables anywhere can be acquired with a contract for real estate. This is a difference in practice between Yerushalmi and Babli.? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ In fact, it has been stated here. The main place of this and the preceding paragraph is Baba Batra ¹⁴⁷ The question presupposes that one may not acquire movables elsewhere with the contract for real property. The Yerushalmi accepts the answer given in the previous paragraph that only R. Eliezer allows acquisition of remote movables with real estate. The Babli (Qiddušin

Who is bedridden? Anyone who did not get sick suddenly¹⁵⁴. It is customary for the relatives to visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. A clarification: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case¹⁵⁵?

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ But if he gets sick suddenly, he is called מְסוּכָּן “critical”. ¹⁵⁵ To act as if you were unrelated, while you are as dear to me as any relative.

“If he reserved any real estate for himself, his gift is permanent,” even if he did not recover¹⁵⁶. “If he did not reserve any real estate for himself, his gift is not permanent” if he did recover¹⁵⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Since he reserved property for himself, he did not think that he would die and the transaction is a valid gift. ¹⁵⁷ He gave everything away because he thought that he would die and his action amounts to a will which is not valid as long as the testator is alive. Since the gift was not made in due form but under the special rule for sick people, it becomes invalid automatically when the testator recovers.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav¹⁵⁸ 9:6, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai, given as justification for the rules in the preceding paragraph.: They¹⁵⁹ declared oral instructions by a bedridden person equal to written and delivered ones¹⁶⁰ by a healthy person, on condition that he had died from that particular sickness and that he describes the property and says, give field X to Y¹⁶¹. If he says, half of the field to X and half to Y, is that designated? Or only if he says: the Northern half, the Southern half¹⁶² 3:5), the Babli in Ketubot 109b and Giṭṭin 8b accepts “half a field” as complete description which makes the gift valid and collectible. Since the Yerushalmi does not resolve the question, the law remains in doubt and, by the rule that the claimant has to prove his claim, the gift is not collectible.?

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ In Baba Batra ¹⁵⁹ The rabbis, originators of the rule. ¹⁶⁰ A gift document becomes valid only on acceptance by the recipient or his representative. ¹⁶¹ If the instructions are ambiguous or leave the implementation to a third party, they do not invalidate the claims of the legal heirs. ¹⁶² In the interpretation of Maimonides (Zekhiah umattanah

Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁶³ 9:6, the reading is: R. Jeremiah in the name of Rav.: If he reserved movables, he did not do anything¹⁶⁴. Come and look: If he reserved any real estate, he has something to live on¹⁶⁵, but he can live comfortably as a dealer in gems and pearls. Hence, the exclusion of movables by R. Joḥanan does not seem to make sense.; if he reserved gems and pearls, does he have nothing to live on? Rebbi Yose said, this man knows that the gift of a bedridden person transfers property rights even verbally¹⁶⁶. Why did he write it with an obligation of acquisition, in order to give it the status of a gift by a healthy person.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ In the parallel Baba Batra ¹⁶⁴ Since the Mishnah formulates that only a reservation of real estate validates the gift. ¹⁶⁵ Presumably, the reservation clause means that he reserves enough to live on if he recovers. Nobody can live on the proceeds from real estate the size of a sela ¹⁶⁶ Rebbi Yose notes that the Mishnah and the commentary of R. Jeremiah refer to a written gift of a bedridden person. Since it is unnecessary in this case to write a document, the fact that the document was written confers on it the status of a gift by a healthy person. The reservation clause is purely formal and the argument about livelyhood is irrelevant.

If he reserved slaves¹⁶⁷ Batra 150a) they are defined as movable real estate. In the Babli also it seems that the exclusion of slaves has no legal consequence., about that R. Judan bar Pazi from Bar Delaiah stated something, but we do not know what he stated.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ In certain respects, slaves are treated like real estate, but in others like movables. In the Babli (Baba

If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another¹⁶⁸ 152b). Hence, somebody must have received the document for the beneficiary. According to Rav, this makes the gift absolute as explained by R. Yose earlier. According to R. Joḥanan (in the Babli, Samuel), since in any case the deed will automaticaly be rescinded if the donor recuperates, the document is not executable as long as the donor lives and, hence, it is rescindable by him., Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean¹⁶⁹? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third¹⁷⁰ an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may¹⁷¹ not eat terumah¹⁷² (in ritual purity), the slave of a Jewish non-Cohen (Israel, including Levites) may not eat terumah. In the opinion of Rav, the Israel is the master if the donor dies and, since a gift is retroactive as explained in the second paragraph following, the slave is disqualified from the moment of the symbolic act of acquisition of the first document., in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah¹⁷³. Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel¹⁷⁴, he may not eat terumah; maybe the giver will recuperate.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ A bedridden person who gave property away by a written document in which no real estate was reserved. Then he wrote a second document to supersede the first one. If all had been oral, there is no doubt that a later will would annul the prior one. If the document was simply written and nobody performed an act of acquisition, it seems that even for the Yerushalmi the document is not valid (this is the explicit position of the Babli Baba Batra ¹⁶⁹ If the ownership of a slave is transferred in the gift document. ¹⁷⁰ The first master is the donor, the second master is the beneficiary of the second gift, and the third master the beneficiary of the first gift. ¹⁷¹ This is the text of all manuscripts, including R. S. Cirillo. All commentators declare the text to be faulty and switch “may” and “may not” between Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan; however, this seems to be inadmissible. ¹⁷² A slave is a family member; hence, the slave of a Cohen may eat terumah ¹⁷³ Since both the donor and the legal recipient are Cohanim, the question of ownership is irrelevant. ¹⁷⁴ And both recipients are Cohanim.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna, a baraita supports Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan: “¹⁷⁵ 8:9) has quite a different (Babylonian) version: A healthy person who wrote a will (in the abridged form only permitted to bedridden persons), a bedridden one who wrote a gift document (in the language prescribed for healthy people), even though he let somebody acquire for the recipient, they did not do anything (their documents are invalid). But if somebody wrote as agent for another person (who is sick and afraid of his family) a gift document and let it be acquired, his action is valid. A healthy person who wrote a will¹⁷⁶ and a bedridden one who wrote a gift document¹⁷⁷ may change their minds.” A healthy person who wrote a will may change his mind, even as long as he is healthy. Similarly, a bedridden person who wrote a gift document may change his mind, even while he still is bedridden.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ The Tosephta (Baba Batra ¹⁷⁶ Greek διαθήκη “will, testament”. ¹⁷⁷ In the language of a healthy person’s gift that becomes valid on acceptance.

What is a will? “It should be granted to me to live¹⁷⁸ 155b) has למיקם “to get up”. In any case, it is a wish that the testator should live and, in that case, the will should cease to be in force. and get up from bed, but if I should die, my properties should be given to X.” What is a gift? “All my properties are given as a gift to X from now on,” or it must be written: “as of today¹⁷⁹.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ This is the reading of the Venice print and Leyden manuscript, and in all quotes of this passage by medieval authors. The Rome manuscript has לחיות “to live”; this is the reading preferred by S. Lieberman. The Babli (Baba Batra ¹⁷⁹ Since no gift document can enter into force after the death of its author. In the case of the will, it does not come into force, but there is an obligation on the heirs to fulfill the wishes of the dead. The language “from today” changes even a will into a gift.

The sister of Rebbi Gurin¹⁸⁰ wrote her possessions over to her brother¹⁸¹. His older brother came, made peace with her, and she wrote her possessions over to him. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, one may change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said, but does Rebbi Joḥanan not agree that if it was written “from today” one may not change his mind¹⁸¹? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Rebbi Illaï came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Then Rebbi Immi remembered, and the judgement was reversed.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ An Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Yose bar Ḥanina and R. Simeon ben Laqish. His brother’s name was Menaḥem. ¹⁸¹ It follows from the discussion of the case that the document contained the clause that it was valid “from today” even if it had a statement that it would become executable only after the testator’s death. The gift to the elder brother was written in the same terms. ¹⁸¹ It follows from the discussion of the case that the document contained the clause that it was valid “from today” even if it had a statement that it would become executable only after the testator’s death. The gift to the elder brother was written in the same terms.

Rav said¹⁸² may be replaced by part of the inheritance., if he lets them acquire through her¹⁸³. Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah¹⁸⁵ 132 ab), R. Yose ben Ḥanina, while still calling it a relaxation of the rules of ketubah, offers a third possibility: If the husband offered the real estate as settlement of the ketubah and she accepted. This is not accepted in the Yerushalmi, probably to avoid the possibility that the husband exerts undue pressure on his wife in a purely private transaction., and so stated bar Qappara that a relaxation of the laws of ketubah is proclaimed here¹⁸⁶. Rebbi Abba said, the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina¹⁸⁷, the minimal ketubah of a previously married woman. Cf. Greek μνᾶ, ἡ, Latin mina, “sum or weight of 100 drachmae”, derived from Hebrew/Syriac/Accadic מנה. or two hundred¹⁸⁸, the minimal ketubah of a virgin., but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand gold denars they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah¹⁸⁹ of 200 zuz is easily satisfied by real estate. But for a thousand gold denars, representing a few million $ buying power in today’s money, it is not likely that the full value will be covered by agricultural real estate..

footnotes: ¹⁸² This refers to the last part of the Mishnah and explains the circumstances under which the ketubah ¹⁸³ If the wife is the person through whose acceptance the entire document becomes valid. Then it must be assumed that she agreed to its terms. ¹⁸⁴ And she does not object. ¹⁸⁵ In the Babli (Baba Batra ¹⁸⁶ Both according to Rav or to Samuel. The relaxation is explained by Rebbi Abba. ¹⁸⁷ 100 zuz ¹⁸⁸ 200 zuz ¹⁸⁹ The value of a regular ketubah

MISHNAH: He who writes over his properties to his slave makes him free¹⁹⁰. If he reserved any real estate, he does not make him free¹⁹¹ 9a) the document does not refer exclusively to the slave and, therefore, is not a document of manumission. Since the master is now dead, nobody else can be forced to write a document of manumission for the slave. R. Simson’s interpretation is that he writes the deed only to make sure that the slave take care to preserve the estate but he will have reserved the slave himself for his heirs.. Rebbi Simeon says, the slave always becomes free unless the master says, all my properties are given to my slave X except one tenthousandth of them¹⁹².

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Since the slave is also property, he acquires himself and, therefore, becomes his own master. The gift document is at the same time the document of manumission. ¹⁹¹ Since he reserved something, in the interpretation of Maimonides (following the Babli, Giṭṭin ¹⁹² Since he did not spell out what is reserved, the slave himself may be reserved. But if he spelled out what is reserved, that is reserved and nothing else.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa (Assi) in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he reserved some movables, he did not do anything¹⁹³. I say that he reserved the slave’s person.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ Following both interpretations of the Mishnah, the situation is identical to the one where real estate was reserved and the document is invalid.

¹⁹⁴ 1:13: “He who writes over his properties to his slave makes him free. If he reserved any real estate, he does not make him free. Rebbi Simeon says, if he said all my properties are given to my slave X except one tenthousandth of them, then he did not say anything; but [if he said all] except the hamlet X or the field Y then the slave acquired the property and acquired his freedom. When these words were said before Rebbi Yose, he said: : “He who answers correctly should be kissed on his lips.” R. Simson has in addition: “Even if the estate contains only this hamlet or that field,” meaning that the slave acquires himself (his freedom) even if he acquires no other property from the estate of his dead master. This is the interpretation of all medieval authorities. Since R. Yose is the most authoritative of the teachers of his generation, his support of R. Simeon’s position makes that the valid practice, against the anonymous majority opinion of the Mishnah. When the case came before Rebbi Yose, he said (Prov. 24:26): “He who answers correctly should be kissed on his lips.”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ This refers to the opinion of R. Simeon who corrects the wrong attitude of the first teacher of the Mishnah. It is taken from Tosephta Peah