MISHNAH: The Sabbatical of white figs¹ Chapter 1, Note 5. is the second year²4:16) notes that it is possible that the fruits are edible and subject to the laws of tithes already at the end of the first year of the cycle. The trees mentioned here carry both ripened fruit and flowers at the same time. since they produce after three years. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Sabbatical of Persian figs is the year after the Sabbatical since they need two years to produce. One said to him, they mentioned only white figs.

footnotes: ¹ Cf. Demay ² The second year of the new Sabbatical cycle. Maimonides (Ševi‘it

HALAKHAH: “White figs”, etc. What are white figs? Stonies³. Do they bear every year or only once in three years? They bear every year but their fruits ripen only after three years. How does one know? Rebbi Jonah said, from when he binds a string around them⁴. Samuel stated, one sticks a splint into them.

footnotes: ³ Greek adj. πετραῖος, α, ον, Latin petraeus, a, um, “stony, of stone”. ⁴ Presumably a different kind of string every year.

It was stated⁵ 15b, Tosephta Ševi‘it 4:20), the statement is anonymous, representing the opinion of the majority of Sages.: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a tree that buds before the fifteenth of Ševaṭ⁶ 1:1), cf. Chapter 2, Note 52. is tithed for the past [year]; after the fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the coming [year].” It was stated: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, when has this been said? For a tree producing two threshing floors⁷ a year. But trees making only one threshing floor per year, such as olive trees, date palms and carob trees, even if they budded before this day, belong to the future.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, people use to follow Rebbi Neḥemiah for carobs. Rebbi Simeon objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state that “the Sabbatical of white figs is the second year since they produce after three years”? According to you, those ripened in the Sabbatical year should be Sabbatical! He accepted that⁸. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana⁹ said, I wonder how Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish could bring this objection before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it. Could he not object: I am speaking about carobs and you about white figs, I am speaking about custom and you about practice¹⁰, I am speaking about Rebbi Neḥemiah and you about the rabbis¹¹! It follows that the rules are equal for carobs and white figs, custom and practice, Rebbi Neḥemiah and the rabbis¹².

footnotes: ⁵ In the Babylonian sources (Ros̊ Haššanah ⁶ New Year’s Day for trees (Mishnah Ros̊ Haššanah ⁷ Fruits of trees are not threshed; “threshing floor” means here “harvest of all the fruits of a tree at one time”, to exclude figs and similar fruits that ripen and are harvested over a long period of time. The Babylonian sources use בריכה “brood (of pigeons)” for the same meaning. ⁸ In the opinion of the Babli, if R. Joḥanan did not find an answer to the objection it does not imply that he accepted its inference as practice to be followed, in disagreement with the Yerushalmi. ⁹ In the Babli, R. Abba Cohen; in other places of the Yerushalmi, R. Abba bar Cohen. ¹⁰ Practice is the generally accepted ruling of the rabbis; custom is what the people do, without explicit rabbinic endorsement. ¹¹ Of the anonymous Mishnah which, according to R. Joḥanan, should always guide practice. ¹² Hence, the Babylonian text which omits the mention of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is justified; the statement is generally accepted and R. Neḥemiah explains it but does not disagree.

There¹³, they say: A tree which buds before the New Year’s Day of the World¹⁴ is tithed for the past; after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Yudan bar Pedaiah objected before Rebbi Jonah: But carob trees form buds before New Year’s Day and are tithed for the future! He had not heard what Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos said, for carob trees the forming of clusters¹⁵ is [counted as] their forming buds.

footnotes: ¹³ In Babylonia. This opinion is not mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud. ¹⁴ The First of Tishre, usually called simply “New Year’s Day”. ¹⁵ The clustering of carob pods is visible.

Rebbi Assi said, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the past, after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Zeїra objected before Rebbi Assi: Some years are late¹⁶ and dates start to have sap after the New Year’s Day of the World but they are tithed for the past! Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Assi did not say this on his own but following Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁷. Hence, it must depend on the First of Tishre, following the teachers from “there”.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: “If it was one-third ripe before the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ it is tithed for the past, after the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ for the future¹⁸.” Rebbi Zeїra said, that is correct; for an etrog, did one not eliminate its budding but not its year¹⁹ 2:4 states the opinion of Rabban Gamliel (which is practice to be followed) that an etrog(citrus medica) is not like a tree fruit in that it is tithed in the year it is harvested, not the year it is formed. Hence, all other tree fruits have to be tithed in the year of their formation.; but here did one eliminate its year but not its budding?

footnotes: ¹⁶ That means, New Year’s Day is early in the solar year. ¹⁷ Since R. Joḥanan, following the objection of R. Simeon ben Laqish, decided that practice had to follow R. Neḥemiah and tithing for trees with only one harvest did not depend on the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ ¹⁸ This is identical with the opinion of the Sages there, except that the New Year of trees substitutes for the New Year of the World. ¹⁹ Mishnah Bikkurim

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Does this mean, the first third for the past, the second third for the future²⁰? He said to him, the first third is slow in coming; afterwards it grows rapidly. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra learned that from a competent sharecropper. Samuel said, sixty days for six leaves, six days for sixty leaves. It was stated²¹: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from the appearance of leaves to the bud fifty days, from the bud to the wind-fall²² fifty days, from wind-fall to figs fifty days. Rebbi says, all of them by forty days.” If somebody harvested figs and does not know when their buds were formed, Rebbi Jonah said he counts a hundred days backwards; if the Fifteenth of Ševaṭ falls in this period he knows when they budded.

footnotes: ²⁰ Should one-third of the tithes be counted for the past year and two thirds for the coming one? The question would arise if a farmer tithes all his yield from one source, not each batch singly. The answer is that growth of the first third of the time between flowering and ripening of the fruit does not count since the volume produced is negligible. ²¹ Tosephta 4:20. ²² שיתין areשחיתין , “waste figs” which cannot ripen and fall off before they get heavy.

They²³ said to him, but they are with you in Tiberias and they produce in one year. He said to them, but there they are with you in Sepphoris²⁴ and they need two years!

footnotes: ²³ This refers to the dispute in the Mishnah between R. Jehudah and the Sages regarding Persian figs. ²⁴ Sepphoris is on a cool mountain top, Tiberias in a hot depression below sea level.

MISHNAH: If somebody stores arum²⁵ 6:9. “Storing” is done in a hole in the ground covered with earth. Since arum is planted, not sown, one has to store it in a way that is clearly different from planting. in the Sabbatical year, Rebbi Meїr says it should not be less than two seah²⁶, cf. Berakhot Chapter 3, Note 164. and [in a hole] three hand-breadths deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top. But the Sages say, it should not be less than four qab, one hand-breadth deep, with a hand-breadth of earth on top, and should be stored where people step on it²⁷. Arum after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, he should settle with the poor. Rebbi Joshua says, if the poor collected the leaves, they collected; otherwise, the poor have nothing to settle with him³⁰. Arum of the year before the Sabbatical entering the Sabbatical⁴⁵, as well as summer onions and madder growing on choice land⁴⁶, the House of Shammai say, one takes them out with wooden shovels but the House of Hillel say with iron spades. They agree that one takes out madder growing on slopes with iron spades. When may a person buy arum after the end of the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jehudah says, immediately. But the Sages say, after the new [crop] is dominant.

footnotes: ²⁵ See Mishnah Peah ²⁶ 12 qab ²⁷ So nothing will grow there. ³⁰ This Mishnah is explained in the first paragraph of the Halakhah. ⁴⁵ Since it stopped growing during the dry season, it is legitimate to harvest it commercially even during the Sabbatical. The House of Shammai require that in the Sabbatical the harvest not be done in a professional way. ⁴⁶ Maimonides explains “madder of best quality”, but this does not fit the usual meaning of עידית. Also, in the next sentence, the problem is not the quality of madder but the difficulty of access to the land.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody stores arum”. This takes care of arum. Onions? Rebbi Jonah said, arum and onions follow the same rules²⁸ and R. Isaac Simponti, take this sentence to mean that arum is onion. This does violence to the style of the Yerushalmi, cf. the text at Note 12. {Hebrew לוּף denotes a different plant than Arabic لُوف “dishcloth gourd”.}. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that a lesser quantity be permitted for onions for they are smoothed²⁹.

footnotes: ²⁸ The commentators from Maimonides to Lieberman, except Arukh ²⁹ The roots are removed before storage. There is no danger that the stored onions could grow out of the earth.

“Arum after the Sabbatical”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yose follows Rebbi Joshua. As we have stated there³¹. 25:6–7 reads: “The Sabbatical of the Land shall be food for you, for you, your male and female slaves, your employees and the non-citizens who dwell with you. All its yield shall be eaten by your domesticated animals as well as the wild animals of your land.” As explained in Mishnah 7:1, this is taken to mean that people may eat Sabbatical produce only as long as wild animals can find that particular produce on the fields. When nothing more is left for the wild animals, the produce may no longer be stored; all produce harvested and stored has to be distributed for immediate consumption; this is called removal.: “Poor persons eat after the removal but not rich ones, the words of Rebbi Jehudah³². Rebbi Yose says poor and rich persons may eat after the removal.³³”

footnotes: ³¹ Mishnah 9:8. Lev ³² Since R. Jehudah’s father, R. Illaï, was one of the few known students of R. Eliezer, it is reasonable to assume that R. Eliezer’s opinion here underlies the later statement of R. Jehudah. It will be stated in Mishnah 7:1 that only the leaves of arum are subject to removal; the roots are hidden from the wild animals and not subject to removal. Since the poor have the right to harvest the leaves (as vegetables) after the time of removal, any leaves remaining after the Sabbatical are the property of the poor. If the leaves grow again in the following rainy season, the farmer who harvests the leaves as vegetable during that year has to compute the share of the poor and separate it from his harvest. ³³ Since everybody may take the leaves after the time of removal, the poor have no claim to anything the next year. Cf. also Chapter 9, Note 116. One has to assume that the Mishnah deals with minute amounts since there would be no removal if considerable amounts were available on the fields.

Rebbi Ammi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does our Mishnah go back to the time before they decreed about spontaneous growth³⁴. 25:5 reads: “The spontaneous growth of your grain you should not harvest …” On this, Sifra Behar1(3) comments: From here the Sages found support to forbid spontaneous growth in the Sabbatical. The verse forbids only commercial harvest of grain. R. Ammi notes that the leaves of Arum whose roots were in the earth long before the Sabbatical must have the status of spontaneous growth of vegetable.? He said to him, where you there on the upper floor³⁵? Rebbi Ammi inferred that the prohibition of spontaneous growth is from the Torah³⁶.

footnotes: ³⁴ Lev ³⁵ In all cases where details of the enactment of rabbinical prohibitions have come down to us, the vote was taken on the upper floor of some house. R. Joḥanan notes that no record of such a vote is available. ³⁶ The different positions in this matter will be described in Chapter Nine.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Mishnah deals with the leaves of false arum³⁷ 3:4).. Rav Hoshaiah brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated³⁸: “The leaves of arum or of onions.” Can you speak of leaves of false onions? The word of Rebbi Jeremiah implies that anything subject to removal found inside something not subject to removal is subject to removal³⁹. How does Rebbi Jeremiah deal with this? He explains it if he trampled on the leaves⁴⁰ of Bar Qappara had been trampled down before the start of the Sabbatical and, therefore, do not grow any longer from the bulb..

footnotes: ³⁷ A plant looking like arum but without a bulb. Its leaves are pure vegetable (if they are young and not bitter, Mishnah Uqeẓin ³⁸ Bar Qappara’s version of the Mishnah supports R. Jonah, that arum and onion follow the same rules. False onions do not exist. ³⁹ R. Jeremiah does not want to apply the rules of the Mishnah to genuine arum; he must be of the opinion that the entire arum plant is subject to removal since its leaves, being sold as leaf vegetables, are subject to removal. This would contradict the statement of the Mishnah which explicitly excludes the roots and speaks only of the leaves. ⁴⁰ Since no non-bulbous plant has leaves like onions, he must explain that the onion leaves in the baraita

Rebbi Yose explains the Mishnah before the New Year of the Sabbatical: If one planted before the New Year of the Sabbatical, it formed a bulb before the Sabbatical; he pressed [the leaves] down during the Sabbatical and tore them out after the Sabbatical. If you say that pressing down is like tearing out⁴¹, everything is for the poor. If you say that pressing down is not like tearing out, not everything is for the poor. Because of this doubt, he should settle with the poor.

footnotes: ⁴¹ Since breaking petioles of the leaves in bending them will stop the growth. R. Yose explains only the position of R. Eliezer. It is implied that R. Joshua is sure that pressing down is not like tearing out.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah explains the Mishnah as referring to the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical. If he planted on the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical, it grew a bulb at the start of the Sabbatical; then he pressed [the leaves] down during the Sabbatical and tore them out after the Sabbatical. If you say that pressing down is like tearing out, everything belongs to the farmer⁴². If you say that pressing down is not like tearing out, not everything belongs to the farmer⁴³; therefore, the poor have no settlement with the farmer.

footnotes: ⁴² Since there will be no more growth, the farmer is under no obligation. ⁴³ That means, nothing is for the farmer; the poor take all without computation, even that which grew in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle.

“If it was in the ground three years, he gives one quarter to the poor. Two years, he gives one half to the poor.⁴⁴” Rebbi Yose explains the baraita before New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical, Rebbi Ḥizqiah explains the Mishnah [as dealing with] the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Tosephta 4:3, explaining the position of R. Eliezer. He assumes that the growth rate is constant from year to year. Hence, the poor’s part in a plant that started growing at the beginning of the Sabbatical and grew n full years after the Sabbatical is 1/n+1.

“Arum of the year before the Sabbatical” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not so also in the other years of the cycle⁴⁸ since we have stated⁴⁹: “If it was the second year entering the third, he may not bend it or withhold water from it so it should be Second Tithe⁵⁰; if it was the third year entering the fourth, he may bend it and withhold water from it so it should be tithe of the poor”? This implies that bending down is like tearing out!⁵¹ Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Explain that he tore them out before they started to grow.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The argument seems to refer not to our Mishnah here but to the explanations of Rebbis Yose and Hoshaiah of the difference between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua in Mishnah 3, cf. Note 41. ⁴⁹ Tosephta 2:10. ⁵⁰ If it does not grow any more after New Year’s Day, the Second Tithe is all the farmer’s and the poor have no claim whatsoever. Years 3 and 6 are years of the tithe of the poor; in these years the farmer has no part in the second tithe. ⁵¹ This contradicts the prior statement that the question is unsettled.

“Summer onions”, summer ones⁵³. “They agree that one takes out madder growing on rocky slopes⁵⁴. We have stated on that⁵⁵: “At a place where one is used to plough, he may plough, to harrow, he may harrow⁵⁶.”

footnotes: ⁵³ The Aramaic trade name for the kind described in Hebrew in the Mishnah. ⁵⁴ Greek πέτρα “rock”. ⁵⁵ A similar statement is in Tosephta 5:23: “On does not tear out spontaneous growth of the Sabbatical with his hand but one ploughs as usual, as animals graze as usual.” ⁵⁶ Under a regime of crop rotation, ploughing under the remains of the previous crop is only a preliminary step; it is not yet ploughing for a new crop and not under the prohibition of the Sabbatical. If it is a usual procedure, no bad impression will be created.

“When may a person buy” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? They made a decree regarding arum but not regarding vegetables⁵⁷. Then it should be permitted even during the Sabbatical! We deal with what was stored, that one should not go and bring from the forbidden crop and say, I brought from storage⁵⁸.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Mishnah 4 requires that arum be harvested during the Sabbatical with indequate tools. This rabbinic decree does not extend to vegetables. Therefore one may assume that vegetables offered for sale during the Sabbatical or immediately after its end are grown during the Sabbatical but one may assume that arum offered for sale is from the stored produce of the sixth year. ⁵⁸ This is the reason for the Sages who require that one wait until there is a new crop.

It was stated⁵⁹: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that we were at Ein Kushin⁶⁰ 5:4 (fol. 44d)] is near Kefar Shalem and according to the Babli (Avodah Zarah 31a) near Birat Sareqa (fortification of the Saracens). None of these places has been convincingly identified. and ate arum at the end of the holiday at the end of the Sabbatical⁶¹ following instructions by Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Yose told him, I was with you but it was only the end of Passover.”

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Tosephta 4:4, with slightly different wording. ⁶⁰ A place which according to the Yerushalmi [Avodah Zarah ⁶¹ The 23rd of Tishre, soon after the end the Sabbatical. Am instruction given by a major authority must represent practice.

MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work⁶² is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted. The seller⁶⁵ may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property⁶⁶. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him⁶⁸ a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.

footnotes: ⁶² In most Mishnah mss: לעבירה “for sinful activity”. ⁶⁵ This text is only found in the Leyden ms. and the Venice print. All other sources have הַיּוֹצֵר “the potter”. The quote in the Halakhah shows that this should be the text here also. ⁶⁶ Since all produce in the Sabbatical is ownerless, this is what one usually collects under Sabbatical rules. ⁶⁸ The person known to flout the laws of the Sabbatical.

HALAKHAH: “These are the implements”, etc. Rebbi Jonah said: So is the Mishnah⁶³: “These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical to a person suspected of violating the Sabbatical.” If one does not know⁶⁴, what is the rule? Since it was stated “[if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted”, that means that it is permitted if one does not know.

footnotes: ⁶³ The interpretation of the Mishnah given in his time. ⁶⁴ The seller does not know the extent of religious observation of the prospective buyer.

“The potter may sell”. Should we not worry and say, maybe he will switch? Rebbi Jonah said, one recognizes, these are for wine and those for oil. Rebbi Ulla said, the material of these is known and the material of those is known⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ According to R. Jonah, the amphoras are distinguished by their shapes, according to R. Ulla by their material. In the translation, (أرض) ארדא "material, earth" is read for אדרא "skin", following R. E. D. Lapp.

“He may sell to Gentiles in the Land” even a larger quantity “and to Jews outside of the Land” even for what was bought in the Land.

“The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated⁶⁹ 46a, Baba Batra 92a. The statement is identical but the interpretation is radically different: Samuel is interpreted to hold that probabilities are not admitted in suits about monetary claims while Rav will admit probabilistic arguments in civil suits.: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction⁷⁰ but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker⁷¹. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed⁷² 29b. The argument is purely theoretical since the institution of the Jubilee, in which all agricultural land reverts to the family who received it under Joshua, was not (and could not have been) revived during the Second Commonwealth.: If he sold it⁷³ during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge⁷⁴ but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing⁷⁵. 25:15 that fields are sold for future harvests. Therefore, a transaction that cannot lead to a harvest is illegal.? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ The expression usually is reserved for Tannaitic statements; this Amoraic statement is found in Babli Baba Qama ⁷⁰ The buyer may return what he bought for a full refund. ⁷¹ The Babli notes that usually an ox trained for ploughing is much more valuable than one sold for slaughter and we are forced to conclude that we are dealing with the unlikely case that the two prices are about equal and one cannot determine the use of the ox by the price paid. This argument is discussed in the next paragraph. ⁷² Babli Arakhin ⁷³ A field. Since the Jubilee is also a Sabbatical, the buyer could never have any benefit from his buy. ⁷⁴ Nobody can claim ignorance of the basic rules of the Jubilee; hence, the transaction was entered upon in the full knowledge of its futility. But in the case of the ox, the buyer has no advance knowledge of its dangerous behavior. ⁷⁵ It is stated in Lev

Does Rav follow the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel? Rav follows the House of Shammai and Samuel the House of Hillel. Rav follows the House of Shammai, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Hillel, people do not usually keep⁷⁶ for thirty days. If he keeps it for thirty days would it not be an erroneous transaction⁷⁷? Samuel follows the House of Hillel, but even if he would follow the thinking of the House of Shammai, people do not usually slaughter ploughing cattle⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Cattle bought for slaughter. ⁷⁷ Even for Samuel. ⁷⁸ In the case of the Mishnah, he would agree with the House of Shammai that a cow bought explicitly for ploughing is not to be slaughtered. But in the case of the goring ox it is a matter of monetary claim and in suits over money it is incumbent on the claimant to prove his claim; he cannot have recourse to an argument about probabilities. For Rav and Samuel the case of the goring ox has no parallel in the Mishnah here.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody lent his measuring cup and found him using it⁷⁹, he does not have to say anything; much less if he rented it out.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ The lender found the borrower using his measuring vessel for a Sabbatical crop, in violation of the rules.

MISHNAH: A woman may lend to her neighbor whom she suspects in matters of the Sabbatical a coarse sieve⁸⁰ “basket”, corbula “little basket” (E. G.).], a fine sieve, grindstones and an oven⁸¹ but she should neither cull nor grind with her. The wife of a fellow may lend to the wife of a vulgar⁸². The vulgar may be assumed to be impure and to impart impurity to prepared food. a coarse sieve and a fine sieve, she may cull, grind and sift with her, but she may not touch hers once water has been put in⁸³, Chapter 2, Note 141 because one does not support transgressors⁸⁴ to be impure if one can help it, but the ḥallah of a vulgar is always impure and may not be eaten.. All this has only been said for communal peace. One⁸⁵, 5:9. encourages Gentiles in the Sabbatical year but not Jews. One greets them for communal peace.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ According to Maimonides, נפה is a sieve for flour and כברה (“braided from twigs”) is a sieve for seeds, but the Halakhah shows that נפה is coarse and כברה fine (the Arabic כִּרבִּיל given by Maimonides for כברה denotes a fine sieve). The root verbs are כבר “to sift” and נוף “to move to and fro”. [Cf. also Latin corbis ⁸¹ A movable clay stove. One must assume that the stove is impure since the vulgar will certainly make it impure by using it (R. Simson). ⁸² The definition of “vulgar” and “fellow” are given in the Introduction to Tractate Demay ⁸³ Food becomes susceptible to impurity by contact with water, cf. Demay ⁸⁴ Since one may not cause ḥallah ⁸⁵ This is repeated from Mishnah 4:3 (Note 49). The entire Mishnah and Halakhah is repeated in Giṭṭin

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case⁸⁶, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit⁸⁷? I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ If the borrower does not specify for which purpose she needs the implements. ⁸⁷ For what may sieve, grindstones, and oven be used if not to prepare food. Since the borrower must be assumed to transgress the laws of the Sabbatical, does one not give his implements in the knowledge that they will be used for sinful activity?

Rebbi Phineas asked: For what did they impose a fine⁸⁸? At a place where they sow and eat⁸⁹ or at a place where they sow but do not eat? What is the difference? If one saw him buying from Saracens⁹⁰. If you say at a place where they sow and eat, if one saw him buying from Saracens it is forbidden; if you say at a place where they sow but do not eat, if one saw him buying from Saracens it is permitted.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ That one may not sift or grind with the borrower. ⁸⁹ The farmers transgress in raising cash crops in the Sabbatical but they themselves would not eat commercial Sabbatical produce. [Most commentators explain that “eating” refers to the time when wild animals would no longer find any food on the fields, when the consumption of stored Sabbatical yield, in a way stolen from the wild animals, is forbidden. But then the mention of sowing would be meaningless.] ⁹⁰ Saracen traders do not bring their merchandise long distance so that their produce might be imported and permitted.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina asked: Has this⁹¹ been said for all of this chapter or only for this Mishnah? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: From the fact that we state only this Mishnah in Giṭṭin⁸⁵, 5:9. it follows that it was said only for this Mishnah.

footnotes: ⁹¹ That collaboration with the unobservant is permitted only for the sake of communal peace. ⁸⁵ This is repeated from Mishnah 4:3 (Note 49). The entire Mishnah and Halakhah is repeated in Giṭṭin

There⁹² is in Babli Avodah Zarah 55b., we have stated: One⁹³ does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind nor sift with him. And here, it says so⁹⁴? Rebbi La said, Here for profane [bread], there for heave. But did we not stated "a baker"? Can you say heave at a baker’s⁹⁵? The colleagues⁹⁶ say, one if he washes⁹⁷, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.”

footnotes: ⁹² An extended form of this baraita ⁹³ A fellow as long as it was possible to prepare food in ritual purity. ⁹⁴ To perform the same actions with the wife of a vulgar. ⁹⁵ Heave is given to the Cohen who is responsible to keep it in purity and may not hand it over to a baker. ⁹⁶ R. Ḥanaiah and R. Oshaia the colleagues of the rabbis. ⁹⁷ If the baker washes the grain before grinding to eliminate impurities, the flour is prepared for impurity.

“All this has only been said for communal peace.⁹⁸” Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succed” For him who says plough it well, what means “one greets them”? “May you succed.” For him who says may you succed, what means “one greets them”? Jewish greeting, “Peace upon you.”

footnotes: ⁹⁸ From here to the end of the chapter the text is identical (except for some spelling variations) with that in Chapter 4, Halakhah 3.

Explanation: Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, may you succed. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach us (Ps. 129:8): “The passers-by did not say, the blessing of the Eternal be on you,” that it is forbidden to say “may you succeed” to one who ploughs in the Sabbatical. He told him, you know to read but you do not know to make a homily. “The passers-by did not say,” these are the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you, you do not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.