MISHNAH: Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example “a dripping olive tree¹” in its time, if it was forgotten, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. When does this apply? For its name, its production, and its place. By its name, if it was dripping² or from Beth Shean. By its production, if it produced much. By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall. For all other olive trees, two are subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, three are not. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olive trees.

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides identifies this as “from Beth Netofa (in Galilee);” then it should be vocalized נְטוֹפָה. But the form נְטִיפָה in the Halakhah requires נְטוּפָה here. The addition “in its time” can only mean that the olives start dripping even on the tree, at the end of the growing season, for a short time every year. ² Literally, “pouring” or “from a town Shipkoun”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time³.

footnotes: ³ Because it has a specific name or property.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it was marked in his mind, is it as if it were marked⁴? If it stood in the shadow⁵ 5:24) reads בצד “next to”, which probably is the correct reading. of a date palm, the date palm marks it. If two of them were dripping, each of them marks the other⁶. If the entire field was of dripping olive trees? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim⁷ said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land⁸. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.

footnotes: ⁴ If the olive grower gave the tree a private name in his mind, is that as good as a publicly known name (or, at least, a name known to his workers). ⁵ Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm ⁶ These three cases are agreed on; the question is about the next case. ⁷ An Amora of the third generation, student of R. Joḥanan and colleague of R. Eleazar, mentioned as R. Simeon bar Elyaqim in the Babli. ⁸ In the war of Bar Kokhba.

Šofkānī drips oil. But did we not state “dripping,” so it must be that it yields much oil. But did we not state: “By its production, if it yields a lot.” So, Šofkānī⁹ yields much oil. Nĕṭūfah¹⁰ drips oil. Its production, it yields a lot, viz., it produces a lot of olives. Bês̄ānī, some say, really from Beth She’an¹¹; some say, it puts the other trees to shame¹² by producing fourfold, similar to what we have stated: If all sheaves of the field are of one qab, except one which is of four qab and was forgotten. Since it produces more than others, it is considered marked. On condition that it produces every year? Since it produces most years it is considered marked.

footnotes: ⁹ Root שפך “to pour out.” ¹⁰ Root נטף “to drip.” ¹¹ Biblical בית שאן, Talmudic בישן. ¹² Root בוש “ashamed,” taken in causative sense, “to put to shame.”

“By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall.” Is our Mishnah following the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned¹³? Rebbi Yose¹⁴ said, it is everybody’s opinion; there it is movable near immovable, here it is immovable near immovable.

footnotes: ¹³ If the Mishnah did accept the ruling of the House of Shammai as generally accepted practice, it would be more than astonishing. However, the quote from the House of Shammai (Mishnah 6:1) seems to be wrong; it would have to be Mishnah 6:2: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels; if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say, it is not a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say, it is a forgotten sheaf.” In contrast, everybody seems to agree that an olive tree standing near a closure is not forgotten. ¹⁴ The Amora.

“¹⁵ Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Repeated from above.

Rebbi Yose¹⁶ said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.¹⁷. 24:20–21: “If you shake your olive tree, do not pick single olives behind you; they shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. If you harvest your vineyard, do not pick unripe berries behind you; they shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” Behind you must refer to things forgotten, since one harvests always in front of himself.” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written (Deut. 24:19): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there.

footnotes: ¹⁶ The Amora. The reference here is to Halakhah 6:4 which specifically excludes single olives from the law of forgotten sheaves. The next reference to “Rebbi Yose” is to the Tanna. ¹⁷ It says in Deut

Rebbi Jonah had a problem¹⁸: That dripping olive tree, since it is marked, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose even if he started with it it, should it be as if he had not started with it?

footnotes: ¹⁸ The problem refers to the next Mishnah which states that once one started to harvest an olive tree, even if it was marked by some of the peculiarities enumerated, it becomes subject to the law of forgotten sheaves. Rebbi Yose denies any applicability of that law to olive trees. Since practice does not follow R. Yose, the question is not resolved.

MISHNAH: An olive tree standing between three rows of two rectangles, when forgotten, is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves¹⁹ 3:25) Maimonides accepts the explanation, also given by R. Simson, that the olive tree is a single tree surrounded on three sides by three rows of trees, each row consisting of two trees, so that the surrounding trees hinder the access to the single tree. R. Simson rejects the idea that the tree should not be subject to the law because of difficulty of access.]. An olive tree which yields two seah²⁰, when forgotten, is not legally forgotten. When does this apply²¹ but to the marked trees mentioned in Mishnah 1. After one started harvesting, these are not protected unless they yield two seah.? Only if he did not start with it, but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten, is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. Whenever he²² 1:12) refers “him” to the poor. Once they have permission to search for olives under the tree, they may take the olives that are still on the tree, but not before (even though ususally olives are not harvested by climbing the tree but by shaking it.) R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David (Mattenot Aniïm 1:12) refer “him” to the owner; as long as anything under the tree (the main harvest) is not legally forgotten, everything on the tree is his, independent of his state of mind regarding the olives remaining on the tree. has under it, he has at its crown. Rebbi Meïr says, from the moment that the maḥba is used²³ is an instrument with which the branches of the olive tree are shaken to remove the olives still clinging to the branches. In all manuscripts of his tradition, the spelling is מחבה as a feminine, in accord with the feminine form of the verb. R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David explain maḥba as the leaves which hide olives and must be removed. Since Maimonides lived in olive growing societies, his explanation should be accepted. The root underlying מחבא seems to be Arabic ח̇בּא “to grow abundantly” (but cf. text at note 44)..

footnotes: ¹⁹ Maimonides explains in his Mishnah commentary that the trees are planted in checkerboard fashion, that each “white” square has a tree while the “black” squares are planted with vegetables; we still say that the middle one is obscured by the surrounding trees, disregarding the vegetable beds. R. Isaac Simponti accepts this explanation but takes the rectangles to denote distance, not necessarily that they are planted. [However, in his Code (Mattenot Aniïm ²⁰ Olives, not oil. ²¹ This question does not refer to the tree yielding two seah ²² Maimonides, in his commentary and his Code (Mattenot Aniïm ²³ According to Maimonides, the maḥba

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: “of two rectangles” and he forgot it²⁴ 3:10). Rebbi Eleazar wants to emphasize that the correct reading is two, not three as in Yalqut Shimoni 937. Other explanations by J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה pp. 92–93 are unconvincing.. What are we dealing with? If it is because it is marked, are there not other olive trees²⁵ is also the reading in Tosephta Peah 3:10, Sifri Deut. 284.? If it is because it is in a row²⁶, it is considered a row in itself²⁷. It must be because of row and of rows²⁸.

footnotes: ²⁴ The last expression, “and he forgot it,” is missing in the Rome manuscript. (However, “and he forgot it” is in the parallel Tosephta Peah ²⁵ They also should be exempt since they are adjacent to a marked tree. Two ²⁶ If it is aligned in a long row of seven trees and therefore not privileged, which is impossible since it may be considered the head of a row of four. ²⁷ Since it is not aligned with anything, it cannot be exempt from the law as a row. ²⁸ It is in the middle of a row and its row is the middle row, following the explanation of Maimonides in the commentary to the Mishnah. The central position marks it.

Rebbi Yose said²⁹, the Mishnah deals with an olive tree that can be shaken³⁰. Rebbi Yose³¹ said, not only one that can be shaken; since olive trees usually are first checked by shaking, none can be under the law of forgotten sheaves.

footnotes: ²⁹ It is unlikely that “R. Yose” here is correct, since the next paragraphs refer to R. Joḥanan. R. S. Cirillo has אמר ר׳ יוסי אמר ר׳ יוחנן but this clearly is Babli style (in the Yerushalmi it could be either אמר ר׳ יוסא ר׳ יוחנן or אמר ר׳ יוסי בשם ר׳ יוחנן) and, therefore, it is his interpolation. ³⁰ I. e., the entire harvest can be done by shaking the tree; it is not necessary to climb up on a ladder to remove the olives still hanging. ³¹ This is either R. Yose the late Amora giving a ruling that in practice asserts the position of R. Yose the Tanna, or it is a justification of the position of the Tanna R. Yose from a practical, rather than a theoretical, point of view.

Some Tannaïm³² state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan³³. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar³⁴. A baraita³⁵ 3:10. The text here follows the Rome manuscript which is identical with that of the Tosephta. The Venice print has the positions of “recognizes” and “does not recognize” switched. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits³⁶.”

footnotes: ³² These Tannaïm are not the Sages of the period known as tannaïtic but are scholars who memorized tannaïtic statements (which at this time were not written down) to produce them when asked about them. The different versions are those of our Mishnah. ³³ It turns out after the fact that the tree can be harvested simply by shaking. ³⁴ It is known beforehand that the tree is standing at a certain privileged place. ³⁵ Tosephta Peah ³⁶ If the tree has a distinguishing mark, as in the case described by R. Eleazar, the entire Mishnah does not apply. Hence, we must deal with a particular property discovered after the fact.

Hence³⁷, if it yields two seah, if it was forgotten it is not legally forgotten. It does not refer to this but to the first Mishnah: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, if it was forgotten, it is not legally forgotten. Hence, if it yields two seah, if it was forgotten …”³⁸ in its time, when forgotten is legally forgotten. But if it yields two seah, when forgotten it is not legally forgotten.”

footnotes: ³⁷ Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah. ³⁸ Maimonides in his Mishnah commentary construes as follows: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, when forgotten is not legally forgotten. When has this been said? Only if he did not start with it; but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree

“Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown.” One may explain this in two ways. Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown; hence, before that even if there is nothing under it, he has at its crown³⁹ 1:12).. Another explanation: Whenever he⁴⁰ has under it, he has nothing at its crown⁴¹; by the time the maḥba was used, even though he has nothing at its crown he has under the tree⁴².

footnotes: ³⁹ The poor may take the olives remaining on the branches even though the owner is not finished with collecting all olives shaken from the tree (Maimonides Mattenot Aniïm ⁴⁰ The owner. ⁴¹ Since he will not start collecting the olives that fell off the tree until he has removed the remaining ones from the tree mechanically. ⁴² At that time, the poor may search the tree since the owner has completed his harvest.

It was stated⁴⁴ in the name of the House of Shammai: When he puts away the knee cushion⁴⁵) and finishes, then he still has at the top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The remainder⁴⁶ of the harvest. Rebbi Abbahu said, ⁴⁷ is … that which takes care of the hidden ones: (1Sam. 23:23) “Find out and see all the hiding places where he could hide.”

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Explaining the statement of R. Meïr and the word maḥba. ⁴⁵ Used to collect all the olives shaken from the tree. (Second explanation of Arukh. ⁴⁶ Arabic כִּדַּה “poor soil”, אַכִּדַּה “leftover pasture”. ⁴⁷ Maḥba

MISHNAH: What are dropped berries⁴⁸ 19:10.? Anything that drops during vintage. If he was gathering grapes, cut off the bunch, it got mixed up in the leaves, fell to the ground and scattered⁴⁹, that belongs to the proprietor. He who puts a basket under the vine while he is gathering grapes robs the poor, and about him it was said⁵⁰ (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.” What is a gleaning⁵⁵ 19:10, *Deut.*24:21). In Arabic, the root means “going over the harvest a second time” in general. of grapes? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping⁵⁶. If it has either shoulder or dropping it belongs to the proprietor, in case of doubt it belongs to the poor. A gleaning on a cut branch, if it can be cut off together with a bunch it belongs to the proprietor, otherwise to the poor. An isolated berry, Rebbi Jehudah says, it is considered a bunch⁵⁷, but the sages say, a gleaning.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Here starts the discussion of the duty to give single berries to the poor, Lev. ⁴⁹ By accident. ⁵⁰ Cf. Mishnah 5:5. ⁵⁵ In the Torah, עלל is used exclusively for vines (Lev. ⁵⁶ The Halakhah explains these terms. ⁵⁷ According to the Halakhah more than three isolated berries together form a bunch for R. Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: This means that dropped berries become sanctified⁵¹ in the act of falling down. Does this not simply answer Hilfai⁵² and toseftot and maintained that all necessary information could be obtained from the Mishnah.’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: There is a difference, because he prevented them from reaching the ground⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵¹ As food of the poor for which they do not have to give heave or tithes. If the berries were not the property of the poor while falling down, the vintner could not be accused of actively robbing the poor by putting a basket under the vine. ⁵² In the Babylonian Talmud, he is called Ilfa. He studied together with R. Joḥanan, was as great as R. Joḥanan in learning but preferred to earn a living in trade. He objected to the use of baraitot ⁵³ Even if dropped berries become exempt from heave and tithes only when they touch the ground, still the vintner is guilty of robbery since without his intervention the berries would have touched the ground. However, it is reasonable to say that the berries do not become sanctified in falling and that the vintner, in addition to being a robber of the poor, is still under the obligation of giving heave and tithes from what he collected.

(Tosephta Peah 3:11): “What are gleanings? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has shoulder but no dropping, dropping but no shoulder, it belongs to the proprietor, if it is doubtful it belongs to the poor. What is a shoulder? Spread out⁵⁸ one on top of the other. What is a dropping? They hand downward on the spine.”

footnotes: ⁵⁸ The etymology and meaning of פסיגין is not very clear. I am comparing it with Arabic פסג “to spread one’s legs.” The meaning of the sentence is that grapes must also grow upward from the spine.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Only if they all touch the palm of his hand⁵⁹. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, it happened that they weighed a gleaning in Sepphoris and it was seven pounds⁶⁰, “a pound” of 12 oz.? Rebbi Ḥinena said, if they put it on a board, every grape must touch the board⁶¹ “board, plank”; also “plot in a vineyard.”.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ A rudimentary bunch qualifies only as gleanings if it is so small that it fits into one hand. ⁶⁰ Greek λίτρα, Latin libra ⁶¹ Latin tabula

A Levite who received unprepared tithes⁶²18:26). The heave of the farmer has no minimum spelled out from the Torah, but it must be given from the harvest itself. The heave of the tithe is fixed at 10% but it may be given from anywhere (Terumot 2:1); hence, the Levite may use any fruit he has for that tithe. and found in them gleanings may use them for the heave of the tithes even on other places. But do not gleanings belong to the poor? Rebbi Avin in the name of the rabbis from there⁶³: I say that they are gleanings cut with the bunches⁶⁴ 3:14) simply states: “A Levite to whom grapes were given, among which he found gleanings, does not have to worry whether they might belong to the poor.”.

footnotes: ⁶² First Tithes of which the heave of the tithe was not given to the Cohen. Tithe may not be eaten before the heave of the tithe is separated (Num. ⁶³ Babylonia. ⁶⁴ As spelled out in the Mishnah. The Levite does not commit a sin since he is not using property acquired illegally to satisfy a religious duty. The Tosephta (Peah

Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Is. 17:6): “There will remain in it gleanings as when one plucks olives, two or three kernels⁶⁵.” More than that is a grape.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Meaning that one, two, or three berries on one branch really belong to the poor even according to Rebbi Jehudah, but four or more, even though they grow out right from the stem and do not form bunches, are not called “berries” but “grape.”

Clarification⁶⁶ 111b–112a; the first ones also, very much changed, in Baba Batra 91b. כרם usually means “vineyard,” but in Jud. 15:5 כרם זית is a plantation of olive trees.. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by the orchard of Doron⁶⁷. The sharecropper brought them one peach⁶⁸; they and their donkeys ate from it and left some over. They estimated it to be like a dish⁶⁹ from Kefar Ḥananiah⁷⁰ that contains a seah of lentils. After a time they passed by there, he brought them two or three peaches in one hand. They said to him, we would like some from that tree. He said to them, they are from it. On that, they quoted (Ps. 107:34): “A fruit-bearing land into salt flats, because of the evil of its inhabitants.”

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The following digressions are induced by the story told before of a few grapes in Sepphoris weighing together seven pounds. Most of these stories are also quoted, in changed form, in Babli Ketubot ⁶⁷ It is not clear whether this is a personal or topographical name. ⁶⁸ Greek περσικὸν μῆλον, τὸ, also περσικός, ὁ, “Persian apple.” ⁶⁹ Greek λοπάς, -άδος, ἡ, “plate.” ⁷⁰ A place in Galilee famous for its pottery, possibly Kafr Anan.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, when I immigrated here, I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of my donkey to measure around a young carob tree of the Land of Israel and it was not enough. I cut one carob pod and it filled my hand with honey⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Carob syrup. In general, “honey” may mean both bee’s honey or syrup. In Arabic, דִבשׂ denotes only “sugary matter produced from a fruit, syrup, molasses”.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit⁷² we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed⁷³ 91b.).

footnotes: ⁷² Cf. Arabic ספסאף “rejects, bad quality, junk.” ⁷³ He was born under the Principate, lived through the hyperinflation and the shrinking economy of the Military Anarchy, and died under Diocletian’s military absolutism. (Cf. Babli Baba batra

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel⁷⁴ grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran, and one seah of wheat germ. But today, we do not even get one for one⁷⁵ of grain contains empty space between grains. In milling, by necessity something is lost. One seah of grain yields much less than a seah of flour. Cf. Babli Ketubot 112a, Sotah17b..

footnotes: ⁷⁴ On the high plain above Tiberias. ⁷⁵ A seah

Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Avin: Cinnamon was goat feed when the Jews were growing it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abin: The two daily offerings⁷⁶ which were sacrificed every day used to be carried by a camel and their legs touched the ground. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Idi: It happened that someone tied his goat to a fig tree; when he returned, he found honey⁷¹ and milk mixed⁷⁷ 111b, in the name of Rami bar Ezechiel, brother of Rav Jehudah, a wanderer between Galilee and Babylonia..

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Two yearling sheep. ⁷¹ Carob syrup. In general, “honey” may mean both bee’s honey or syrup. In Arabic, דִבשׂ denotes only “sugary matter produced from a fruit, syrup, molasses”. ⁷⁷ Babli Ketubot

Rebbi said to Rav Periri⁷⁸: Would you show me the bunch of grapes in your vineyard? He said to him, if you come out, I will show it. When he was still far away, he spied something like an ox. He said to him, does not the ox destroy the vineyard? He said to him, what you take for an ox is the bunch of grapes. He quoted for it (Cant. 1:12): “As long as the King was at his round table, my nard gave its fragrance79;” the Temple is destroyed and you persist in your obstinacy? Immediately, they looked for it and it was never found again.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ He appears only here and the title “Rav” is impossible for anybody in the Yeshivah of Rebbi except Rav himself. R. S. Cirillo changes the name to Rebbi Pedat (who however lived long after Rebbi), R. Eliahu Fulda and R. Moses Margalit use “Rebbi Peridah,” a mythical figure from the Babylonian Talmud who is reputed to have lived for over 400 years. He would fit into the story but one might doubt that Rebbi would hurt him. I wonder whether the person in question is not Rav himself and פרירי is an (Aramaic-Arabic فورار) address of endearment “my lamb”. In that case, one has to translate: Rebbi said to Rav: My lamb, will you not show me.… Since Rav was a relative of the Heads of the Diaspora and rich, he could have owned real estate whose yield would sustain him during his years of study.

They brought before him two radishes from between New Year’s Day and the Great Fast⁸⁰. It was the year after a Sabbatical, and they were a full camel’s load. He said to them, are they not forbidden as aftergrowth⁸¹? He said to him, they were sown at the end of New Year’s Day. At that moment did Rebbi permit to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Yom Kippur, the Tenth of Tishre. The radishes probably were offered for sale on Yom Kippur Eve. ⁸¹ One may not use any plant grown in the Sabbatical year for commercial purposes (and one may not use any produce if nothing of the same kind is left on the fields for wildlife.) Hence, the free growth of the Sabbatical is forbidden in commercial transactions even after the end of the Sabbatical year.

They asked before him, what is that which is written (Joel 1:17): “Dried figs became mouldy under their shovels.” He said to them, we were raking honey, now we are raking rotten things instead. It happened that somebody had a row of fig trees; when he came, he found them surrounded by a fence of honey.

One person sowed turnips on his field; he used to cut them off and sell them⁸². It happened that a fox made his nest in a turnip’s head. It happened in Shihin⁸³ that one stalk of mustard plant had three leaves; one leaf was split off to cover a potter’s hut and they found on it three qab⁸⁴ of mustard seed. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, I had a stem of mustard plant on my property and I climbed on it the way one climbs a fig tree.

footnotes: ⁸² It is still possible to replant the top of a large radish with a small part of the root and it will regrow a root, but not more than once. ⁸³ A village near Sepphoris renowned for its pottery. This story also appears in Ketubot. ⁸⁴ About 7 quarts.

It happened that someone sowed a seah of peas and it produced 300 seah. They said to him, the Holy One, praise to Him, has started to bless you. He answered, get away from here, if bad dew had not descended on it, it would have produced twice as much.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, it happened that Rebbi Jehudah said to his son in Sikhnin⁸⁵: Go and bring us dried figs from the barrel. He went and put his hand into the barrel, found it full of honey and said: Father, it is a barrel of honey. He said to him, put your hands deep into it and you will bring up the dried figs. It happened that Rebbi Yose said to his son in Sepphoris: Go and bring us dried figs from the upper floor. He went and found that honey was floating on the upper floor. Rebbi Ḥananiah was a dealer in bee’s honey; he also had honey obtained by roasting⁸⁶ as a kind of dates, since vegetable honey is made from dates. However, the previous stories were all about the fact that earlier (before the war of Bar Kokhba but long after the destruction of the Temple) even figs produced sap so rich in sugar that it could be used as honey substitute. So one possible translation would be “of ẓeli figs”; it is unclear what kind they are. The translation assumes that it was bee’s honey, which may be obtained from the honey combs by heating. Then the “roasted” honey was lower quality honey obtained by roasting honey combs from which the first quality had been extracted by moderate heat, and honesty required that the customer be informed that the honey sold was of second quality only. “To roast” is Hebrew צלה, Arabic צלי. The word could also be derived from Arabic צוול “to clean out by washing”, צולה “chaff”, giving a similar meaning.. After a time they passed by him. He said to them, in order not to trick you, you should know that the honey that I gave you was from roasting. They said, from that one we want more because it is good for our purposes. He set aside its value⁸⁷ honey. and built with it the House of Study of Sepphoris.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ A town in Galilee, birthplace of R. Joshua. ⁸⁶ Following Levy, all the dictionaries identify ẓeli ⁸⁷ Greek τιμή, “value.” He set aside the difference in value between premium bee’s honey and ẓeli

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon went to a place where they brought him shrunk cabbage⁸⁸. He said to them, you put a lot of honey into it. They said to him, we did not put anything in, it is in its natural state.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Either dried in the air or roasted over a fire.

MISHNAH: He who thins out vines⁸⁹ since thinning is done early in the growing season and peah is designated at the end of the harvest., just as he thins out his own so he thins out those of the poor, the words of Rebbi Jehudah⁹⁰. Rebbi Meïr says, he may do so for his own but he is not empowered for those of the poor.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ So that the rest of them should grow more and larger grapes. The “vines of the poor” are those on which single berries are visible. One cannot say that it refers to the part of the vine that is designated as peah ⁹⁰ The Halakhah explains that R. Jehudah considers the poor as partners of the proprietor while R. Meïr considers them as buyers.

HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them⁹¹. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner⁹². Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller⁹³. Rebbi Immi said to him⁹⁴: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him⁹⁵!

footnotes: ⁹¹ To thin out after the sale. ⁹² Since it is a necessary part of tending the vineyard. ⁹³ The last clause is missing in the Venice print and the Leyden manuscript; it is added from R. S. Cirillo and the Rome manuscript on the testimony of R. Simson of Sens that it was in his Yerushalmi text. ⁹⁴ The person addressed is not indicated. The usual partner of Rebbi Immi was Rebbi Yasa (Assi). ⁹⁵ If the wild animal ate all the gleanings of the poor person then, as in any partnership, the damage should be borne jointly by the two partners; hence, the farmer should pay to the poor person his part of the loss. (Since individual poor persons have no standing in court in this matter, probably he should give the equivalent to the local administrator of charity.)

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that Rebbi Jehudah changed his opinion. There⁹⁶ he says, in both cases he takes them, deposits them on the fence and the poor comes and takes what is his; but here he says so⁹⁷! Because he squeezees them, they will produce more the next year. I should say also here, because he fertilizes it, it will produce more the next year. He said to him, it happens frequently⁹⁸ Hence, the interest of the poor in not in the next crop. that he will sow vegetables and shelter them from the poor.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Halakhah 5:3, speaking of the farmer who wants to irrigate or fertilize his field immediately after harvest, before the poor had an opportunity to search for gleanings. There, the same question is asked in the other direction and answered differently. ⁹⁷ That he can eliminate the part of the poor in the course of regular care of his vineyard. ⁹⁸ A vine is a perennial and will always produce grapes, so the poor can wait for the next crop. But a field is subject to regular crop rotation and it is to be expected that every third year or so the field will be sown with vegetables not harvested at one time, exempt from peah.

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year⁹⁹19:23–24). If there is too much to be taken on a journey, it may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. The House of Hillel compare the yield of the fourth year to the Second Tithe that also has to be eaten in Jerusalem, since produce of the Second Tithe that is redeemed is subject to a surcharge of one fifth (from above, 25% from below). There are two kinds of removal the vineyard of the fourth year may be subject to; if it is compared to the Second Tithe it must be removed from the house at the end of the third and sixth years of every Sabbatical period; if the produce was that of a Sabbatical year, one may take it but only as long as wild animals find similar food on the field (in this case, in other unharvested vineyards) and it must be removed by being consumed before that time. The House of Shammai consider the yield of the fourth year as profane food, subject only to what is expressly spelled out in the verse. The argument of the House of Hillel, that the verse compares the vineyard in its fourth year to the Second Tithe, is given in Babli Qiddušin 54b, Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #8., the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings¹⁰⁰ and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress¹⁰¹.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ It is forbidden to harvest a newly planted vineyard the first three years. In the fourth year, the grapes can be harvested but they (or the wine produced from them) must be brought to the Temple and be consumed in Jerusalem in a festive manner (Lev. ¹⁰⁰ As any other profane food. ¹⁰¹ Since the second tithe is not subject to any gifts to the poor, neither is the yield of the fourth year.

HALAKHAH: It was stated¹⁰³ 5:17. The entire discussion is found in Yerushalmi Maäser Šeni 5:3.: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year¹⁰⁴, so there is no fourth year after planting¹⁰⁵ all speak of נטע רבעי, a planting (a planted tree) in its fourth year. The extension of the Biblical commandment about the vineyard to all trees is discussed in Maäser Šeni, Chap. 5. in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said¹⁰⁶ 26.. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner¹⁰⁷ 26:14.? It is stated: This¹⁰⁸ 3 #9. implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal¹⁰⁹ 2:2 that First Fruits and the vineyard of the fourth year are not subject to either kind of removal.. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground¹¹⁰ 5:19 states categorically that there can be no redemption while the grapes are still on the vine. However, see in Tosefta Kifšutah Maäser Šeni p. 786 the list of authorities who claim that this is only the required procedure, but that a redemption, if done on the vine, is valid after the fact.?

footnotes: ¹⁰³ In a different form, Tosephta Maäser Šeni ¹⁰⁴ Since there is no private property of agricultural produce in the Sabbatical year, there may not be special uses for the farmer’s family. ¹⁰⁵ The Mishnah speaks of כרם רבעי, a vineyard in its fourth year. The baraitot ¹⁰⁶ The First Fruits, for which the praises said in the Temple are spelled out in Deut. ¹⁰⁷ The mourner in the period between the death of a close relative and the burial, when he is forbidden any sanctified food even if he is not ritually defiled, Deut. ¹⁰⁸ The verse declaring the vineyard of the fourth year as “holy for praises.” Cf. Sifra Qedošim Parašah ¹⁰⁹ The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Simeon who states in Mishnah Bikkurim ¹¹⁰ This question is not answered. The Tosefta Maäser Šeni

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then¹¹¹ 5:3). should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

footnotes: ¹¹¹ If it is profane food. The rest of the paragraph is identical with the previous one except for the insertion of את ההלל missing here in the first version (but found in Maäser Šeni

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption¹¹² 35a. The word פדיון “redemption” is missing in the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print; it has been added from the parallel text in Maäser Šeni.? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from identifying ה and ח.¹¹³ is very close to הּ. In Medieval German Jewish, as well in Talmudic Babylonian Jewish, h and ḥ were identical and חַ ,הַּ were used as rhyming sounds. The current Ashkenazic identification of the sounds of ח,כ (ḥ, k) comes from the fact that Polish has only one ch sound; this was adopted by the Jews from their Gentile surroundings. While Biblical Hebrew probably had the two Semitic ח sounds, corresponding to Arabic خ، ح, one ḥ as in יצחק Isaac (Septuagint Ισαακ), the other k as in רחל Rachel (Septuagint Ραχηλ), in Mishnaic times these distinctions had disappeared long ago.

footnotes: ¹¹² If the produce cannot be bodily transported to the place of the Temple. The argument is quoted in Babli Berakhot ¹¹³ In all Jewish dialects except Eastern European Ashkenazic, ח (ḥ)

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption¹¹⁴, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ גָּאֹל יִגְאַל. One of these statements follows Rebbi, the other Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

There we have stated¹¹⁶ 3:9: “The heave of Gentile and Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, their dedication is dedication. Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say, there is.” Even though the Gentile is not required to give heave, tithes, or to dedicate anything to the Temple, if he does it voluntarily, it must be treated according to all rules applying to heave, tithes, and dedications from Jews.: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is¹¹⁷ 66b) declares R. Jehudah to agree with R. Meïr that the Gentile’s arable land is subject to all duties, but this is not the opinion of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile¹¹⁸2:13, where R. Jehudah is quoted that “a Gentile in Syria has no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’.” This follows the interpretation of R. Simson that R. Jehudah cannot speak of a Gentile in the Land of Israel, based on the Babli quoted in the preceding Note. However, R. Simson’s argument does not apply to the Yerushalmi; the direct testimony of R. Salomon ben Adrat (Responsa attributed to Nachmanides156) confirms the Yerushalmi text as it appears here, in Maäser Šeni, and in the Rome manuscript. It is true that in the end, one speaks only of Syria, but this cannot apply to R. Jehudah’s statement in the Mishnah or to R. Eleazar’s addition.. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria¹¹⁹, so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he¹²⁰ said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal¹²¹, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah¹²² 2:13; this is R. Zeïra’s proof against R. Bibi, that R. Jehudah does not negate the obligation of the fourth year for Jews in Syria. However, the paragraph after the next will show that the Yerushalmi follows R. Bibi, that there is no such obligation in Syria. says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Mishnah Terumot ¹¹⁷ This is connected with the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah/R. Simeon whether the possession by a Gentile of arable land in the Land of Israel does free its produce from duties of heave and tithes or not, cf. Chapter 4, Notes 129–131. The Babli (Menaḥot ¹¹⁸ It is difficult to understand what R. Eleazar adds. R. S. Cirillo has: “There is no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’ at all in Syria,” interpreting the Mishnah in terms of Tosephta Terumot ¹¹⁹ Syria has a special status as far as agricultural laws are concerned. The definition of “Syria” here means all territory that was not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua and the early Judges but was included in David’s kingdom. Since it was never incorporated in the Kingdom of Israel, it is not subject to the agricultural laws from the Torah. But since it was part of King David’s empire, these laws apply, either as Rabbinical ordinance or as popular usage. In any case, all rules must be interpreted leniently in Syria. (In consequence of the persecution of Jews in Palestine, particularly under the Christian Roman empire, the center of Jewish population slowly moved from Galilee to Syria.) ¹²⁰ The House of Shammai, taken as a collective singular. ¹²¹ They did not say simply: The rules of the vineyard do not apply at all. ¹²² Tosephta Terumot

Samuel bar Abba¹²³ asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe¹²⁴, there should not be any fourth year after planting. Rebbi Yose¹²⁵ said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there is the tithe for the poor. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.

footnotes: ¹²³ A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of R. Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Zeïra. He is not identical with the Babylonian Samuel, whose full name also was Samuel bar Abba. ¹²⁴ The second tithe is not called Second Tithe but Tithe of the Poor; cf. Chapter 1, Note 127. ¹²⁵ The organizing principle for this and the following group of paragraphs is that Rebbi Yose solves the problems.

Ḥeipha¹²⁷ asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth year after planting in Syria¹²⁸. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice¹²⁹ 7:11–15) note only that four kinds of bread have to be brought and that one loaf each has to be given as heave to the officiating priest. The number of required loaves is not specified. The first heave has no fixed amount from the Torah; in the words of Samuel, one grain is enough for an entire silo. But since the number 1 is spelled out here and it is called heave, the natural inference is that the heave is the heave of the tithe given to the Levite, of which the Levite has to give 10% to the priest (Num. 18:26). Hence, 1 is 10% of the required amount, and from each kind of bread 10 loaves have to be brought to the Temple (Sifra Ẓav 7:1). only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe¹³⁰ in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard of quantities.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ He seems to be identical with the Babylonian Fourth generation Amora ‘Aipha ben Raḥaba from Pumbedita. He and his brother Abime were known as “the sharp-minded ones from Pumbedita.” ¹²⁸ Even for Jews, following R. Jehudah in the Mishnah and against R. Jehudah in the Tosephta. This is accepted as genuine interpretation of R. Jehudah’s position. ¹²⁹ The rules of the thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. ¹³⁰ Since there were no tithes during the 40 years in the desert; tithes are only imposed in the Land of Israel.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah¹³¹ stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land¹³² (Chap. 11, in the author’s edition pp. 116–118.). Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years¹³³;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

footnotes: ¹³¹ A son of R. Jehudah (bar Illaï) and companion of Rebbi. ¹³² The computation which proves that the time from the death of Moses till the end of the land distribution under Joshua and the assembly at Shiloh was 14 years is given in Seder Olam ¹³³ If they were not obligated while they were in the Land before its distribution, then certainly they are not obligated in Syria which was conquered only by a king, not by the community of tribes, held only temporarily, and never was distributed among the tribes.

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield¹³⁴.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property¹³⁵ 2:8 where R. Jehudah states that Second Tithe when wilfully and illegally diverted to profane use, such as bridal money to acquire a wife, becomes valid private property and the marriage is contracted, but if the same act was done in error, without intent to change the status of the Tithe, the Second Tithe remains holy, does not become profane, and the marriage is not contracted., so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ This verse following the one which declares the yield of the fourth year of a new vineyard “holy for praises” reads: “But in the fifth year, you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield to you.” Hence, the harvest is directly given to the owner of the vineyard. Also, “increase” presupposes prior yield for the owner. ¹³⁵ This may refer to the earlier statement of R. Jehudah that the status of the yield of the fourth year is derived from the laws of Second Tithe and, as private property, is subject to the rules of single berries and gleanings. It also may refer to Mishnah Qiddušin

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said¹³⁶ 7:2. This refers to the laws indicated in Lev. 22:10–14. A non-priestly woman married to a priest may eat terumah. If she is divorced, or she becomes a widow without issue, she returns to her former non-priestly status and may not eat terumah. The Mishnah states that the servants of a non-priestly woman who was married to a priest and became a widow while pregnant with her first child, should not eat terumah. The first Mishnah had explained that there are two kinds of property a bride brings to her husband. For “property of dowry” נכסי מלוג the ownership resides with the wife. “Iron cattle” צאן ברזל becomes the husband’s property completely in exchange for an obligation to return full value in case of dissolution of the marriage. In the Halakhah, the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that her servants are “property of dowry” servants, but “iron cattle” servants are his and entitled to eat terumah since only their value has to be returned. She herself may not eat terumah unless and until she gives birth to a male child. On this, R. Abin says in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi that one has to follow what people do, and they do not let any slaves brought by the wife eat in such a situation., as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly¹³⁷ 45a, this is ascribed to Abbaie, an acquaintance of R. Abin.. And we see that they do not give¹³⁸. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; just as you say that the Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes¹³⁹.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Yebamot ¹³⁷ In Babli Berakhot ¹³⁸ R. Zeïra seems to indicate that practice follows the House of Shammai in the interpretation of R. Jehudah. However, practice must follow the House of Hillel who consider the Second Tithe as Heaven’s money. ¹³⁹ According to the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁰ 37b, this is stated by R. Assi, another student of R. Joḥanan.: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr,¹⁴¹ 2:8 disagrees with R. Jehudah and states that one never may use the Second Tithe for bridal money since it belongs to Heaven rather than to the owner. The law of ḥallah(Num. 15:20) states that it must be given to the priest as heave from your dough, and for R. Meïr it is not yours. is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah¹⁴² it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside¹⁴³.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ In Babli Pesaḥim ¹⁴¹ Who in Mishnah Qiddušin ¹⁴² In the Babli, R. Jehudah’s opinion is classified as that of the Sages, i. e. the operative practice, in accordance with the opinion of the Yerushalmi. ¹⁴³ Outside of Jerusalem, produce from Second Tithe may be eaten only if redeemed. Then the produce becomes profane and the sanctity is transferred to the money. Hence, even R. Meir must agree that the dough must acquire profane status and, therefore, is subject to ḥallah.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it¹⁴⁴ is only due from dough made from grain. obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai¹⁴⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ This must refer to the Second Tithe, not the fruit of the fourth year of a tree, since ḥallah ¹⁴⁵ Who declare both the Second Tithe and the growth of the fourth year as private property, subject to all its laws.

MISHNAH: A vineyard that produces only gleanings, Rebbi Eliezer says, they are for the proprietor, Rebbi Aqiba says, for the poor. Rebbi Eliezer said (Deut. 24:21): “When you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it.” If there is no vintage, where are the gleanings? Rebbi Aqiba told him (Lev. 19:10): “Do not take gleanings from your vineyard,” even if it is all gleanings. If that is so, why does it say “when you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it;” the poor have no right to the gleanings¹⁴⁶ before the vintage.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ Nor to enter the vineyard before the time of the harvest. The grapes might still grow to sit one row on top of the other so that at harvest time they are no longer gleanings.

HALAKHAH: Similarly, if there is no harvest there are no single berries¹⁴⁷ 19:10, gleaning and single berries are mentioned in one verse, they must follow the same rules., until there should be vintage¹⁴⁸ along vintage, not if a wild animal ate it.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Following R. Eliezer. Since in Lev. ¹⁴⁸ When the proprietor gathers, the poor can have their grape gathering from the gleanings. However, if animals ate all grape bunches before the harvest, R. Eliezer declares the gleanings to belong to the proprietor.

How much is a vintage? In the school of Shila¹⁴⁹ they said, three bunches that make a quarter¹⁵⁰, about 3.8 fl. oz. or 133 cm3; cf. Berakhot p. 296. [Note 164] of wine.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ An Amora of the first generation in Nahardea who already had his school when Rav returned from Galilee. In the Babli, he usually is given the title Rav, which however is an anachronistic usage by later generations. ¹⁵⁰ A quarter of a log

Rebbi Aqiba certainly explains both verses. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “do not take gleanings from your vineyard”? So you should not say that, since the poor have no rights before harvest time, the proprietor acquired rights to them¹⁵¹, it is necessary to say “do not take gleanings from your vineyard¹⁵².”

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ That the owner of the vineyard could come and take all the unripe gleanings for himself before harvest time. ¹⁵² Anytime before, during, and after the harvest.

MISHNAH: If someone dedicates¹⁵³ his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor¹⁵⁴. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple¹⁵⁵. What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take¹⁵⁶. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ Donates it to the Temple. Temple property is exempt from the laws of tithes and gifts to the poor and it is sinful to use any Temple property without first redeeming it by paying for it. ¹⁵⁴ Since nobody can give away what he does not possess, the owner of the vineyard cannot give away the property of the poor. As long as the gleanings are not recognizable, the poor have no rights to them. ¹⁵⁵ To avoid using Temple property unlawfully, the poor who harvest the grapes have to give to the Temple the difference in value of the grapes now and at the time of dedication. (One cannot explain the statement to mean that they should pay part of the cost of tending the vineyard since the vineyard in the Sabbatical year may not be worked on.) ¹⁵⁶ Since on a trellis the branches are stretched out widely, once he has moved he may not return. But single vines standing separately are units by themselves and they become forgotten only if the vintner moves to the next vine.

HALAKHAH: There¹⁵⁸ 4:8 (Yerushalmi 4:9), Tosephta Pesaḥim3:19. Taking the fruits from dedicated sycamores is one of the three things the people of Jericho did and against which the Sages protested. In the Babli, the discussion is Pesaḥim 56 a/b. The entire Halakhah also appears in Pesaḥim 4:9. we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs¹⁵⁹ Historia, Book XIII, §56, already notes that the fruits of the “Egyptian fig” sit on the stem, not on branches.) The fruits are of such inferior quality that they do not qualify as objects of trade. (Cf. Tosefta Kifšutah I, p. 361.) from Temple trees. The¹⁶⁰ 3:22. Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force¹⁶¹.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself¹⁶² 3:6, the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meïlah (larceny committed on Temple property.) In contrast, R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meïlah, therefore he requires in our Mishnah the poor to pay for the expenditures of tending the vines during the growing season. As the Babli (Pesaḥim 56b) points out, the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. However, this prohibition is not written in the Torah. While any condition that goes against a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Halakhah 6:9), a condition that goes against a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It is unresolved whether the ancestors of the people of Jericho had the right to reserve for themselves the use of the sycamore figs.. Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor¹⁶³? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated¹⁶⁴ 3:15.: “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple¹⁶⁵ it is exempt from orlah¹⁶⁶, from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year¹⁶⁷.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹⁵⁹ גֻּמיז in Arabic. The Gaonic interpretation is “growth that comes out of the tree trunk.” (Pliny, Naturalis ¹⁶⁰ Tosephta Pesaḥim ¹⁶¹ Sycamores produce inferior fruits but superior building material. The “strong men” are probably the Hasmonean rulers. The people protected their sycamore groves by putting them out of bounds of any human government. ¹⁶² In Mishnah Meïlah ¹⁶³ If the people of Jericho could not reserve the fruits, then it is clear that future growth is implicit in today’s tree, and the future gleanings should belong to the poor and not to the Temple. ¹⁶⁴ Tosephta Peah ¹⁶⁵ I. e., if he dedicates a newly planted vineyard to the Temple. ¹⁶⁶ The prohibition to use the fruit of a newly planted tree during the first three years refers to the individual Jewish owner; it does not apply to the Temple which is common property. ¹⁶⁷ In which everybody is free to take its fruits.

Rebbi Zeïra¹⁶⁸ 4:9 (fol. 31b). in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 25:2): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls¹⁶⁹ on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible¹⁷⁰ to eat it¹⁷¹ without redemption since Temple property cannot exit¹⁷² without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical¹⁷³. 25:6): “The rest of the Land should be for you to eat,” we infer that the spontaneous growth is there to be eaten, not to be traded. It is possible to trade produce of the Sabbatical year as long as the final use is for food. The Temple has no need for money for food since the public sacrifices must be paid from the Temple tax of half a šeqel and private sacrifices are paid by the donors. Valuables donated to the Temple are used for building upkeep, vessels, and implements. Any monetary gain from Sabbatical produce for these purposes is forbidden; how can the Temple accept illegal money?! He said to him, the treasurer¹⁷⁴ exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah¹⁷⁵ said, why do we not explain it¹⁷⁶ according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said¹⁷⁷4:10: “If they were on the road (a person A and another B who had made a vow not to use anything belonging to A). If B has nothing to eat, A gives food to a third person as a gift and B may use it. If no third person is with them, A puts the food up on a fence or a rock and says: This is abandoned to anybody who wants it. B may take and eat it, but Rebbi Yose forbids it.” On this, R. Joḥanan notes in Halakha 4:10 that R. Yose forbids only because the food was forbidden to B before it was declared abandoned; the abandonment is invalid relative to B. But if something was abandoned before any vow was made, R. Yose agrees that the vow cannot retroactively influence the status of abandoned property. Cf. Chapter 6, Note 17.: The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here¹⁷⁸, because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication¹⁷⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ This paragraph explains the action of the Sabbatical year on Temple property. The text follows the parallel in Pesaḥim ¹⁶⁹ Hence, the status of ownership has no influence on the duties of the Sabbatical year. ¹⁷⁰ In Mishnaic Hebrew, אפשר means “it is possible,” but איפשר is a contraction of אֵי אפשר and means “it is impossible.” ¹⁷¹ Any produce from Temple property collected in the Sabbatical year. ¹⁷² Its sacred status without the sanctity being transmitted to the money that goes into the Temple treasury. ¹⁷³ Since it is written (Lev ¹⁷⁴ The Temple treasurer. He has the right and the obligation to sell all Temple property which is not directly used for sacrifices in order to raise money for the upkeep of the Temple. The Sabbatical produce is not sold but directly exchanged for vessels or implements needed by the Temple. This exchange is permitted; it removes the holiness of Temple property but has no influence on the Sabbatical status of the produce. Then the third party may sell the produce as Sabbatical food (Explanation by R. Z. Frankel.) The third party probably is chosen before any harvest of the Sabbatical year to avoid leading ignorant people into sin. ¹⁷⁵ He belongs to the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm, later than R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ¹⁷⁶ That the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to Temple property. ¹⁷⁷ This refers to Mishnah Nedarim ¹⁷⁸ In the case of the vineyard, the abandonment of the gleanings is written in the Torah and certainly precedes any dedication. ¹⁷⁹ The abandonment of the Sabbatical year is not invalidated by the dedication. Hence, the produce of the Sabbatical year should not need redemption.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened and they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Who requires in the Mishnah that the Temple be reimbursed for the produce grown in its possession, deciding with R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and against R. Mattaniah.

Does this¹⁸⁰ not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten¹⁸¹. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten¹⁸². There is a difference, since any single free-standing vine is a separate planting.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Who requires in the Mishnah that the Temple be reimbursed for the produce grown in its possession, deciding with R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and against R. Mattaniah. ¹⁸¹ And it is stated that for a trellis, one can go over the branches as many times as he wants as long as he does not move away. ¹⁸² But the Mishnah says that one may go around a free-standing vine as many times as he wants, as long as he does not move away.