MISHNAH: Five [persons] cannot give heave and if they gave it is not heave: the deaf and dumb¹, the insane, the minor, and one who gives heave from what is not his. The Gentile who gave heave for a Jew’s property, even with the latter’s authorization his heave is not heave². A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave, but if he did, his heave is heave. A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute. Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. Rebbi Yose says, before he came to the time of vows¹⁰⁵ 5:6: “The vows of a girl 11 years and one day of age are investigated (one inquires whether she understands the notion and severity of vows; if she does, her vows are valid.) If she is 12 years and one day old, her vows are prima facie valid but one investigates them during all of her thirteenth year. The vows of a boy 12 years and one day old are investigated; if he is 13 years and one day old, his vows are prima facie valid but one investigates them during all of his fourteenth year. Before that time, even if they say we know before Whom we made the vow and to Whom we dedicated a sacrifice, their vows are not vows and their dedications not dedications.” According to Rashi, “the time of vows” is when the vows are investigated; according to Maimonides [in his Code (Nedarim 11:3) and in the first and third versions of his Mishnah Commentary] it is the time when all vows are automatically valid. {Rashi’s opinion and the similar one of Maimonides in the second version of his Commentary are the only ones compatible with the Yerushalmi; Maimonides’s other opinion can be justified by the Babli, Niddah 46b–47a.}, his heave is not heave. After he has reached the time of vows, his heave is heave.

footnotes: ¹ He is excluded only if he has no way of communicating with others. ² But a Gentile may voluntarily donate heave from his own produce. ¹⁰⁵ Mishnah Niddah

HALAKHAH: “Five [persons] cannot give heave,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman understood all of these from here (Ex. 25:2–3)³, Chapter 1, Note 70) and, therefore, is under the same restrictions.: “Speak to the Children of Israel that they should give heave for Me”, excluding the Gentile, “from every man”, excluding the minor, “whose intention is to volunteer”, excluding the deaf-mute and the insane. “The following is the heave you shall accept from them”, except from one who gives heave for what is not his.

footnotes: ³ While the verses deal with the voluntary heave for the Tabernacle, it is assumed that the word “heave” always has the same meaning (cf. Berakhot

Should not their⁵ action be proof of their intentions⁶? As we have stated there⁷ 6:1: “If somebody brings his produce up to his roof because of worms and dew descended on it, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ but if he intended this {that the produce should be wetted by dew}, it is under the category of ‘when given’. If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, …”. As explained in Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141, produce is not susceptible to impurity unless it came into contact with water (or any other fluid causing impurity, cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 136) and that contact was desired, since the verse Lev. 11:38: “If produce got wetted by water … it will be impure” can also be read as: “If water was given on produce …”. It is inferred that the wetting, even if happening by a passive process, must have an active ingredient, viz., that the moistening of the produce must be agreeable to the owner.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew⁸ 13a, R. Joḥanan explains that he turns the produce over in order to distribute the moisture evenly. This is professional action. R. Simson conjectures that the action envisaged by R. Ḥuna is the same as explained by R. Joḥanan.. We also have stated there⁹ 3:8. It is explained in that Chapter that water drawn intentionally will make produce susceptible to impurity even if the contact of the produce with it was unintentional. The example described in Mishnah 8 is that of cattle whose feet have to be washed, either because the animal was used for threshing and now is all dusty, or because of some medical condition. Then the water drops clinging to the animal after it was washed in the river will make produce susceptible to impurity unless the animal was driven to the river by “a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person.” Here again, if the cattle are not only driven to the river but actively washed, intention is clearly shown.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that [his animals’] feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” When thought is mentioned in the verse¹⁰, his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.

footnotes: ⁵ Speaking of deaf-mute, insane, and minor. ⁶ One should allow non-verbal communication of “intention to volunteer”. ⁷ Mishnah Makhširin ⁸ In the Babli, Ḥulin ⁹ Mishnah Makhširin ¹⁰ The root both of “thought”, מחשבה, and “being accounted for”, נחשב, is חשב.

Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated¹³ 2:5.: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rebbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is that (Deut. 24:1,3): “he writes for her”, for her personally¹⁴ 2:5. Rebbi Joḥanan points out that the divorce document must be written specifically for the woman in question. If two men with identical names are married to two women who have the same name, and both want to divorce them on the same day, the two divorce documents will have identical wording. Nevertheless, if the husbands switch the documents before they are handed to the respective wives, both divorces will be invalid. In both Talmudim, Samuel narrows down the meaning of the Mishnah in that he allows the incompetent only to write the formulaic portion under the direction of a competent person; but the data which make the document valid, date and names of the two persons involved, must be written by a competent person as agent of the husband. The argument here does not consider this restriction, except that R. Yose (Rav Assi of the first generation Amoraïm in Babylonia) is of the opinion that, since a document containing only date and names cannot be signed by witnesses and is not a divorce document, the writing of the incompetent is necessary for the validity of the document and one has to wonder why this is accepted.? Rebbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes¹⁵ and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he¹⁶ would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.

footnotes: ¹³ Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹⁴ This is an echo of the very short discussion in Giṭṭin ¹⁵ Writing a valid divorce document and using it for the divorce are two distinct actions; one may be valid without the other. But taking heave is valid only if the taking is intended for heave; the action itself needs thinking; this parallels the action of divorce, not the writing of part of the document. ¹⁶ A competent person. Even if he writes all by himself there are two actions. This argument is valid only for R. Eleazar (ben Shamua, the Tanna) who holds that a divorce is validated by handing over the document before two witnesses. But according to R. Meїr who holds that a document is invalid if it has not been signed by two trustworthy witnesses, the writing of the document is not important, only the signing is, and this must be done by two competent persons unrelated to the husband.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher¹⁷. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated¹⁸ 5:7 reads: “Everybody is able to sanctify except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor; but R. Jehudah approves of the minor. R. Ismael, the son of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa says that the sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor, who sanctified in the presence of others, are valid. The sanctification by a sexless person is invalid, for he is possibly uncircumcised, and an uncircumcized person cannot sanctify. The sanctification by a hermaphrodite is valid but R. Jehudah declares it invalid since he possibly is a woman and a woman does not qualify for holy matters.” All this refers to the purification from the impurity of the dead, which needs sprinkling with fresh water to which a minute amount of the ashes of the red heifer must be added. The act of taking the ashes and putting them into a vessel filled with fresh water is called “sanctification.” It is a sacral act (Num. 19:17) and as such needs the intent of the person executing it. R. Ismael, the son of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa, applies the principle that for obligations for which “thought” is implied by the verse but not spelled out explicitly, actions may prove intent. {A sexless person is one without testicles or female sex characteristics. He might be a male with undescended testicles. The hermaphrodite has a penis and testicles as well as female breasts and a vagina; he must be circumcised. The exclusion of women by R. Jehudah is rejected by the rabbis; women nevertheless may not sprinkle since the verse (Lev. 19:18) requires this to be done by “a pure male.”} The seeming inconsistency in the positions of R. Joḥanan is not resolved. {If one assumes that R. Joḥanan agrees with the position of Samuel (Note 14) there is no inconsistency since he will agree that the incompetent may write only the inconsequential parts of the divorce document.}: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

footnotes: ¹⁷ He holds that incompetents may separate heave under the direction of a competent person. ¹⁸ Tosephta Parah

It was stated¹⁹ 1:1, quoted in Babli Giṭṭin 71a. This and the following paragraphs are also in Giṭṭin 7:1 (fol. 48c). Cf. also Mishnah and Halakhah 2.: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when was this said? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf and dumb, he writes and others confirm his signature. ²⁰ If he hears but cannot speak, he is like a normal person.”

footnotes: ¹⁹ A similar statement is in Tosephta Terumot ²⁰ In the Tosephta (1:2) and the Babli, the formulation is: “If he hears but does not speak, he is mute; if he speaks but cannot hear, he is deaf; both have the status of normal persons.” The sentence is missing in the Rome ms.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna²¹. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree²²: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions²³? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree²⁴ 2:8. The text there ends: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice say to the scribe ‘write!’, and to the witnesses ‘sign!’ ” That Tosephta clearly disagrees with Rabban Simeon and disqualifies handwriting by a mute.: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid²⁵7:1: “If somebody lost his speech and they said to him, shall we write a divorce document for your wife? if he gave a sign with his head one checks him out three times; if he indicated ‘yes’ when it was expected, and ‘no’ when it was expected, they should write and hand it over.” The Tosephta also seems to contradict this Mishnah., here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head²⁶ 71a), Rav Cahana in the name of Rav accepts the position of Rabban Simeon, against the Tosephta.!

footnotes: ²¹ Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. ²² Yebamot 14:1: “If a normal man married a normal woman and she became deaf-mute he may divorce her or keep her, but if she became insane he may not divorce her; if he became deaf-mute or insane he may never divorce.” ²³ According to Rabban Simeon, even if he became deaf-mute it should not make any difference since he may give written instructions. ²⁴ Tosephta Giṭṭin ²⁵ This refers to Mishnah Giṭṭin ²⁶ The Tosephta contradicts Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel but not the Mishnah. A written authorization is invalid but a direct authorization by the husband to scribe and witnesses, by speech for a normal person and sign language for a mute, is valid. In the Babli (Giṭṭin

Rebbi Ezra²⁷, Chapter 1, Note 90). asked before Rebbi Mana: Just as you say that three times he must give a sign with his head, must one equally hear his voice three times? He said to him, hearing his voice once, giving a sign with his head three times.

footnotes: ²⁷ He is Rebbi Azariah, a student of R. Mana (cf. Berakhot

Rebbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such²⁸. Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: If he has understanding for the past, he should have understanding for the future; ifhe has no understanding for the past, he would not have understanding for the future²⁹! Rebbi Eudaimon said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute³⁰ also applies to any deaf-mute, whether his disability be congenital or acquired. Since the heave of a deaf-mute is no heave even if the deaf-mute acts for a sane person, it follows that a deaf-mute cannot be an agent and, therefore, cannot appoint an agent. A divorce document must be written by an agent of the husband’s since the verse (Deut. 24: 1, 3) requires that “he writes her a scroll of divorce”. If nobody can be an agent of the deaf-mute, he cannot divorce since even if he himself writes the document he cannot ask the witnesses to sign.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person³¹. A congenital deaf-mute cannot marry or divorce, while a hearing person who is mute is considered normal and can divorce by giving written directions, following Rabban Simeon and R. Mana. The only reason we require a triple confirmation of the will to divorce is to ascertain that the husband really wants the divorce, not that he wants to have a document ready should he want to divorce.. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated so: “When was this said? When he explained it in his regular state. But if he was paralyzed by sickness, once is enough³².”

footnotes: ²⁸ “There” refers to the statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that written testimony of a deaf-mute is valid, “here” refers to the Tosephta that a written command by a deaf-mute is invalid for a divorce. ²⁹ The argument of R. Yudan makes no sense; R. Benjamin supports R. Joḥanan (Note 21 ff.) ³⁰ He rejects the statement of Rabban Simeon and implies that the Mishnah in Terumot ³¹ He accepts the statement of Rabban Simeon and shows that R. Joḥanan is wrong; there is no disagreement between Rabban Simeon and the Mishnah in Giṭṭin ³² Sick persons have to be treated with consideration and only the necessary legal forms have to be observed, not formalities that are not stricly necessary. This is true certainly for critically ill persons, in particular for a childless husband who wants to spare his wife the trouble of freeing herself from an unwelcome brother-in-law (or maybe forbid her to a desirable brother-in-law.)

Who states “the deaf-mute?” Not Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated³³: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sons of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada³⁴ 3a) it is reported that his grandsons, the sons of his normal daughter, were ostensibly deaf-mutes. They went to the lectures of Rebbi and when Rebbi prayed that they should be healed, it turned out that they had learned the entire Mishnah and halakhic Midrashim from his lectures. R. Joḥanan all his life ate only food prepared by the standard of purity of sacrifices. were all deaf-mutes and all purities³⁵ in Jerusalem were handled by them. They said to him, because purities do not need thought and may be produced by a deaf-mute, an insane, and a minor³⁶. But heaves and tithes need thought and do not become invalidated by absent-mindedness.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Thought is not written in regard to them, only watching³⁷. 22:9): “They have to keep My watch.” Pure food remains in its state only if it is permanently guarded against impurity from the moment it is prepared for impurity (cf. Note 7). A properly instructed deaf-mute may act as a guard..

footnotes: ³³ Tosephta 1:1; the remark about abent-mindedness is missing there. ³⁴ A Tanna of the first generation. A Levite who in the Temple was a guardian of the gates. In the Babli (Ḥagigah ³⁵ “Purities” is food prepared in purity, usually by the standards of purity of heave. ³⁶ If they are continually supervised by a normal adult. ³⁷ In the section dealing with impurity of sacred food, it is said (Lev

⁴² 3b. The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna⁴³ said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog⁴⁴, in: Studi Classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella, vol. 4, pp. 71–72, Catania 1972; Notes on the Talmudic Dictionary:Gandropos-Qantropos, Lešōnēnu 35 (1971) 207–210.; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person⁴⁵, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic⁴⁶. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him⁴⁷. The mad dancer⁴⁸, “mad dance”, perhaps chorea. This and the following sentences refer to Mishnah Giṭṭin 7:1 which states that a mad dancer cannot divorce his wife during an attack of his malady. does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one⁴⁹. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself⁵⁰, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

footnotes: ⁴² Tosephta 1:3, discussed also in Babli Ḥagigah ⁴³ Since he precedes Samuel, the author must be the Babylonian Rav Huna, as given in the Babli. ⁴⁴ Greek κυ(ν)άνθρωπος (νόσος) “dog-man (malady)”; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Talmudic Evidence of Greek Spelling ⁴⁵ Greek χολικός “bilious”. ⁴⁶ Greek κυνικός “dog-like”, a philosopher who has no use for industrial products. ⁴⁷ In the Babli, Rav Papa declares this criterion to be the only one to stand alone, all others needing multiple confirmation following Rav Huna. ⁴⁸ Cf. Greek κόρδαξ, Latin cordax ⁴⁹ Arabic הִמּ “decrepit, senile person”. ⁵⁰ It is not at all clear what his symptoms were. Since the profession of the sick person is mentioned, it seems that he was unable to fit two different strands of thread together on his loom; perhaps the description is of Huntington’s chorea or Parkinson’s disease.

⁵²“It sometimes he is insane [when he is sometimes healthy he is normal in all regards], when he is insane he is insane in all regards, when healthy he is normal in all regards.⁵³” A case came before Samuel who said, when he is of sound mind he should deliver the divorce document⁵⁴ 7:1.; one must investigate⁵⁵ is slightly different: “Samuel holds with R. Simeon ben Laqish.” following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he is of even mind; that is as Samuel [acted]. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, only if he is of sound mind he may deliver the divorce document; (Is. 38:16) “make me healthy and let me live!”

footnotes: ⁵² A similar text in Tosephta 1:3. ⁵³ He is a responsible and competent person in all legal respects. ⁵⁴ It is not enough that he be sane when telling the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign; he must also be sane when he delivers the document. Whether a document can be held over a spell of insanity is a matter of dispute between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan in Giṭṭin ⁵⁵ The text in Giṭṭin

Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.⁵⁶, a minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. They said to him, he did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” “They” are the Sages of our Mishnah.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future⁵⁷? Rebbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following⁵⁸ close to a Tosephta, 1:5: “How does one give heave from what is not his?If he went to another person’s field,collected,and gave heave without permission,if he has to worry that it might be robbery,his heave is not heave;if he does not have to worry then his heave is heave.How does he know whether what he did is robbery or not? When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if the owner collected and added to his, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” The full Tosephta is quoted in the Babli, Qiddušin 52b, Baba Meẓi‘a21a.: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ This is a shortened version of a text close to Tosephta 1:4: “Rebbi Jehudah said ⁵⁷ While produce must be “prepared” for impurity (cf. Note 9), heave is automatically prepared by its holy status and can become impure even if dry. In addition, consumption of heave by a non-Cohen is a deadly sin once heave is sanctified. The question is when the status of holiness is acquired. ⁵⁸ This also is a shortened baraita ⁵⁹ The minor (or the stranger in the Tosephta) can do the physical work of separating heave from the rest of the produce but only an adult owner can sanctify it, and only for the future.

⁶¹5:4 (fol. 47a).(Num. 18:28) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his⁶², not found in Sifry Num., must be from the exegesis of R. Aqiba. It appears, in different form, in Babli Giṭṭin 52a.. Did we not state (Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?⁶³” But one must be for Great Heave⁶⁴, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe⁶⁵? But one is for practice, the other for action⁶⁶. “You’ excludes guardians; but did we not state⁶⁷ 5:4. In the first case, the home owner raises the orphans without being officially appointed guardian, neither by the father nor by the court after the father’s death. Nevertheless, the person caring for the orphans becomes de facto guardian.: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell movables to feed them but not real estate⁶⁸: “He may sell slaves to feed them but not real estate.” All other sources give every guardian the right to sell real estate, under the supervision of the court, for the benefit of his wards.?” But here one deals with an adult orphan⁶⁹, there with an underage orphan.

footnotes: ⁶¹ This paragraph is also in Giṭṭin ⁶² This baraita ⁶³ The Sages in that Mishnah declare heave given by one partner without the knowledge of the other as valid. ⁶⁴ Heave given by the farmer; it is ironically called “Great” because it has no biblical minimum. ⁶⁵ The verse quoted refers only to the heave of the tithe, the 10% given by the Levites from their tithes. ⁶⁶ As practice, heave given by guardians is valid; giving tithe by one partner without the knowledge of the other is discouraged. ⁶⁷ Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁶⁸ In Giṭṭin ⁶⁹ Since they are able to give heave for themselves, they have to do it (if they are competent.)

“ ‘You’ excludes one who gives heave from what is not his.” What is the interpretation, one who gives heave from what is not his own, or one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s? Let us hear the following: If he declared his heap as ownerless and then smoothed it and took possession again, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is not his own, his heave is not heave, if you refer to one who gives heave from what is somebody else’s, his heave is heave⁷⁰ 1:6 states that tithes and heave are due after threshing, when the grain kernels have been assembled into a heap and the heap was smoothed. It is shown in Ma‘serot, Halakhah 1:1, that property which was ownerless at the moment when heave was due is exempt from heave. This seems to contradict the statement here that if a person declared his grain ownerless before it was smoothed, then gave heave, and only after that again took possession, his heave might be heave. The entire argument is possible only for R. Meïr, since R. Yose holds that property can be abandoned only if another person takes it up (cf. Peah 6:1, Note 17). It follows that any heave given in this case is given only because by rabbinic decree this kind of pro forma abandoning was declared invalid; hence, there is a rabbinic obligation of heave. As the Babli notes (Nedarim 44b), any heave given from the repossessed grain must refer to the heap itself; it cannot possibly be given for unabandoned grain which is obligated by biblical decree (if we assume that heave is a biblical obligation after the Babylonian exile, cf. Ševi‘it Chapter 7, Notes 11 ff.).. Let us hear from the following⁷¹ 6:4. Stealing sacred property obligates the thief to pay back the amount taken plus a fine of one fifth (Lev. 5:16). The fifth is computed from above (amount stolen = 4/5 amount paid), which is one fourth from below (amount paid = 5/4 amount stolen). Halakhah 6:4 explains that one fifth has to be given to the Temple, restitution of Temple property, and another fifth to a Cohen, as restitution of heave.: “If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal because there is no double payment for Temple property⁷². 22:8) “He shall pay double to his neighbor.”.” Who gave the heave if not the administrator? Is he not giving heave from what is not his⁷³? And you say his heave is heave! The reason must be that he does not give heave from another person’s property. Or should we say, who gave the heave if not a Levite who dedicated his heave? But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that there is no difference between him who dedicated his ṭevel and him who dedicated his heave? Rebbi Idi said, the administrator is like the owner⁷⁴. This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said the administrator is like any other person⁷⁵.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Mishnah Ma‘serot ⁷¹ Mishnah Terumah ⁷² Double restitution is required only for theft from natural persons: (Ex ⁷³ If this argument were valid, no corporation would ever be able to be engaged in agriculture in the Holy Land since it never could tithe. ⁷⁴ Any duly authorized person can give heave for any corporation. The question asked at the start is not answered since we did not find a case in which it would make any difference. ⁷⁵ This opinion is not supported by any other source in Talmudic literature.

⁷⁶ 6:1, explained there in Notes 7–10. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The entire paragraph is from Demay

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who said to a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand”, and this Levite went⁷⁸ Chap. 8, Notes 13,14. and made it heave of the tithe for other produce but the Israel went and gave it to another Levite, [the first one] has only a complaint on him⁷⁹. That is, if he handed it over⁸⁰ before [the first Levite] made it [heave]. But not if this one made it before that one handed it over. Parallel to this Mishnah⁸¹: “If he terminated: if he terminated before he gave heave, his heave is not heave. But if he terminated after he gave heave, his heave is heave⁸².” All this follows: From the moment he said, you have a kor of tithe in my hand, he made him his agent and it turns out that he was tithing with the permission of the Israel⁸³. One may also explain it following Rebbi Yose, as “Rebbi Yose said: If the owner gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.⁸⁴”

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Without first acquiring the tithe; cf. Ševi‘it ⁷⁹ If the Levite ate his other tithe based on the heave of the tithe he thought he had given, he committed an inadvertent sin but has no legal way to ask for damages from the Israel. ⁸⁰ He actually handed it over to the second Levite. In that case, the tithe was in the possession of a third party and the first Levite was tithing what was not his. The problem is that without an acquisition, the first Levite still seems to be tithing produce over which he has no power and this seems to be forbidden by our Mishnah. ⁸¹ Mishnah 3:4. The Mishnah declares that one may appoint an agent for the purpose of giving heave and then proceeds to explain what happens if the agency is terminated by the owner but not in the presence of the appointed agent. ⁸² Once heave is designated it is irrevocably holy (cf. Note 57). ⁸³ Since the power of an agent cannot be greater than that of the principal and since according to the majority opinion, the only thing the Israel owner may do is separate the tithe of the heave but not declare it as heave of the tithe, the Levite cannot act as an agent but must act as independent principal with the right to give heave; the statements are parallel but the Amoraic statement is not a consequence of the Mishnah. ⁸⁴ Tosephta 1:9. According to Rebbi Yose, the first Levite becomes the agent of the Israel.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price⁸⁵;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it⁸⁶ 30b, discusses both versions and finds them in need of emendations. The Rome ms. has a completely different text: דְּמֵיי כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לָךְ בְּיָדִי וְהֵא לָךְ אֶת דָּמָיו אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ. “The value of a kor of tithe you have in my hand and here is its price, he does not have to worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it.” According to this version, R. Joḥanan extends his ruling in the case of R. Simeon ben Abba to all Jews who are tithing.. For example, Elopisa⁸⁷ gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa⁸⁸ asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian⁸⁹, you understood it⁹⁰.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Tithe of which the heave of the tithe has been separated is totally profane in the hand of the Levite and may be sold by him. If the farmer separated the heave of the tithe, he may contract with the Levite to buy the tithe back from him. ⁸⁶ Before he can use the money, he must make sure that the tithe would have been profane in his hand. Therefore, he either must ascertain that the farmer separated heave of the tithe or he must give it himself from other tithe that is not yet profane before he can agree to the deal. The Babli, Giṭṭin ⁸⁷ The exact name has not been determined. Levy proposes Εὔελπις, Kohout Ἐλπίας, Krauss Ἀλοπίς. The Rome ms. reads the name as ליפסה. ⁸⁸ He probably is Issi bar Hini, a Babylonian who studied with R. Joḥanan and then returned to Babylonia where he founded his own Yeshivah. ⁸⁹ Reading בבליה for בכליה. Rebbi Joḥanan was known to address his Babylonian students as “Babylonian”. ⁹⁰ For R. Joḥanan, this is practice to be followed. The same conclusion is reached in the Babli; there the statement is attributed not to the late Tanna R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta but to Abba Eleazar ben Gamla (or, ben Gamliel) whose title, Abba, points to the Temple period or the first generation of Jabneh.

⁹¹ Who needs this? Rebbi Yose! Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? What we had stated there: “He who did read the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and does not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose⁹¹ said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all commandments of the Torah. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments and keep all His basic laws”; your ears should hear what your mouth says.

footnotes: ⁹¹ The Amora. ⁹¹ The Amora.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it⁹³, Chapter 2, Notes 162–166., because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

footnotes: ⁹³ The case of the deaf person who is able to speak is not included in Mishnah 1, detailing those whose heave is invalid, nor in Mishnah 6 in the list of people who should not give heave but whose heave is heave. Cf. Berakhot

There⁹⁶ 1:1. The “appearance” is the assembly of all of Israel at the feast of Tabernacles during the Sabbatical year (Deut. 31:10–13); one derives from this the rules of appearance at all festivals of pilgrimage., we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn⁹⁷.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak⁹⁸? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach⁹⁹ 3a) where it is noted that the second clause, “and learn”, would be superfluous if one excluded only the deaf but not the mute.. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles¹⁰⁰, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not⁹⁴ 1:1 (fol. 75d). ḥereš¹⁰¹. But we have stated¹⁰² 12:5, speaking of the ceremony of ḥaliẓah, the taking off of one shoe, which frees the widow of a childless man from having to marry her brother-in-law (Deut. 25:4–10). The formalized statements by widow and brother-in-law before the court as described in the verses are an integral part of the proceedings.: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.¹⁰³ 104b.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute¹⁰⁴..” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Mishnah Ḥagigah ⁹⁷ The spelling is not masoretical. ⁹⁸ He should be obligated. ⁹⁹ The first conjugation verb could also be vocalized as a causative. The same argument is given in the Babli (Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁰ In the language of the Babli: One does not make inferences from general principles, even when the exceptions are enumerated. ⁹⁴ Reading of the parallel in Ḥagigah ¹⁰¹ Since he is not mentioned in the Mishnah. ¹⁰² Mishnah Yebamot ¹⁰³ Hence, the person who is deaf but not mute can perform a valid procedure. This is also the position of the Babli, Yebamot ¹⁰⁴ This contradicts the formulation of the Mishnah in Yebamot

¹⁰⁶ 13:2 (fol. 13 c/d). It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meїr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs¹⁰⁷). In all matters of biblical commandments, this standard cannot be relaxed.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.¹⁰” Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for a Gentile, and he may give heave¹⁰⁸! Rebbi Jehudah¹⁰⁹ in the name of Rebbi La (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.¹¹⁰” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt¹¹¹, and he may give heave! And did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that Gentiles have no “thought”? That is for preparation, here we talk about heave¹¹².

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ This and the next paragraph are also in Yebamot ¹⁰⁷ As a sign of puberty. Growing pubic hair is the accepted standard of the onset of puberty, the end of childhood, and the start of responsibility to keep all religious obligations (Bar Miẓwah ¹⁰ The root both of “thought”, מחשבה, and “being accounted for”, נחשב, is חשב. ¹⁰⁸ Since a Gentile is not bound by the laws of the Torah (except for the commandments given to Noah), no verse requiring intent can apply to a Gentile. On the other hand, Mishnah 3:9 states that voluntary heave given by a Gentile is heave and subject to all its laws and requirements. ¹⁰⁹ He is Rebbi Yudan. ¹¹⁰ The verse refers to the heave of the tithe. The Levites will be free of guilt if they give heave of the tithe before eating their part of the tithe. The rule established here is then also transferred to the Great Heave. ¹¹¹ His heave is purely voluntary; even if he gives heave but mishandles it, he will not incur guilt. This shows that the second argument cannot be true; in this respect, the laws of the Great Heave cannot be derived from those of the heave of the tithe since no Gentile possibly can give heave of the tithe. One is stuck with the first explanation. ¹¹² Since a Gentile cannot become impure in biblical law, he cannot make anything impure in biblical law, and his intentions are irrelevant and inactive in preparing food for impurity, cf. Notes 7,9. But since heave must be declared, we must hold that the Gentile may validly declare some of his produce to be heave. This proves that the first objection is invalid: Even though the intentions of the Gentile are never required by biblical law, his voluntary intentions are accepted for heave.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple¹¹⁵. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate¹¹⁶ not otherwise transmitted. Since a voluntary sacrifice must be dedicated by a vow, even R. Jehudah must agree that a minor who may not make a vow cannot dedicate a sacrifice.. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate¹¹⁷ 1:2), including a minor.. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings¹¹⁸. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood¹¹⁹. 17:10–14); transgression of the prohibition is a sin which heaven will punish with extermination if intentional but which, if committed unintentionally, may be atoned for by a sin sacrifice (or, even if intentional, by repentance and the Day of Atonement). “Sacrifice for blood” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for a sin punishable by extermination.” It is also forbidden to eat those lumps of fat of cattle, sheep, or goats which would be burned on the altar if the animal were a sacrifice (Lev. 7:23). Punishment for this offense, if documented by two witnesses, is whipping. Therefore, “sacrifice for fat” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for an unintentional simple sin.”. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease¹²⁰. 15:14–15, 14:1–32. Without these sacrifices, the afflicted person cannot touch any dedicated food.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it¹²¹, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it¹²²? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these¹²³? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law¹²⁴ (cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303) and be forbidden for consumption. The prohibition is removed by giving heave. R. Meїr, quoted above, will prevent the minor from putting his own ṭevel in order himself.! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things¹²⁵. 26:1–11). In Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1 it is stated that First Fruits must be eaten by Cohanim under the rules of heave. In Mishnah 3:10, R. Jehudah states that after presentation in the Temple, First Fruits may be given to any Cohen but the rabbis require that they be eaten by the priests serving in the Temple at the moment of presentation. This means that for R. Jehudah, the status of First Fruits is that of heave which may be eaten in the entire territory of the Holy Land (called “territorial consecrated things”) but for the rabbis they are consecrated to the Temple.? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage¹²⁶. 16:16) which is a holocaust, and a family sacrifice, (חגיגה, Deut. 16:11,14; 12:18) which is a well-being offering.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering¹²⁷ 70b)., may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals¹²⁸. 27:32–33. Every tenth newborn in a herd of cattle or flock of sheep and goats has to be offered as a sacrifice. Tithes of produce are mentioned there in verses 30,31.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together¹²⁹ Deut. 105, this is derived from another verse as anonymous statement., then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions¹³⁰. 27:10, it is stated that one may not substitute a different animal for an unblemished animal already designated as sacrifice. The act of substitution is not invalid but sinful and causes both animals to become sacrifices. Since a minor cannot sin, it is questionable whether his act of substitution is valid.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions¹³¹. 27:33, speaking of the tithe of animals. Since the tithe of animals is dedicated as sacrifice, the mention of the prohibition seems to be superfluous; it is taken to indicate that the rules of validity of tithes determine the rules of validity of substitutions.. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple¹³². 12:23). If the minor’s dedication of an animal as sacrifice is valid in biblical law, it is sinful to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. But if the dedication is valid only by rabbinic practice, the animal becomes dedicated only by its acceptance by the priests in the Temple and slaughter outside the Temple is not sinful.? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty¹³³ 46b. In contrast to the Yerushalmi, the Babli states that RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish declare the slaughterer guilty only by rabbinic practice.. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law¹³⁴ comes into being by agricultural activity, not by the minor’s choice, if R. Jehudah permits the minor to give heave, he lets him remove a biblical prohibition and, therefore, gives the minor’s actions validity in biblical law.. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily¹³⁵ 6:1 (Note 11). Since R. Eleazar is mentioned only if R. Joḥanan disagrees, R. Joḥanan here holds that heave today is a biblical commandment, following R. Yose ben Ḥanina [loc. cit. Note 8; Seder Olam Chapter 30, cf. in the author’s edition (Northvale, N.J., 1998), pp. 257–259, x–xi.].

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ The entire paragraph deals with the minor who is able to give heave but has not yet grown two pubic hairs, for R. Yose if he is able to make vows and for R. Jehudah even if he is younger. ¹¹⁶ The statement regarding heave is in the Mishnah. The statement about sacrifices must have been in a baraita ¹¹⁷ In contrast to heave, where the exclusion of minors is based on a verse mentioning “every man” (cf. Note 3), sacrifices are attributed to “a human” (Lev. ¹¹⁸ These are voluntary offerings that also may be brought by Gentiles. Therefore, persons not under the obligations of biblical commandments may dedicate these sacrifices. {The use of the translation “well-being offering” for שלמים does not imply that this is the correct meaning of the word.} ¹¹⁹ Since a minor is not obligated under the law, he cannot sin and, therefore, can never bring a sin offering. It is forbidden to eat the blood of any animal (Lev ¹²⁰ These are obligatory sacrifices of purification when the condition is healed, Lev ¹²¹ A minor cannot be obligated for anything. Since the courtyard of the Temple is reserved for sacrifices, it is forbidden to bring profane animals into it. Therefore, the priests should be required to refuse entry to such a sacrifice when brought by a minor. ¹²² If he has parents, the parents will bring the sacrifice for him to make sure the entire family can partake of the family offerings. Here we speak about a minor who is an orphan. ¹²³ To present somebody else’s sacrifice for the purification of that person. ¹²⁴ If the orphan minor owns agricultural land, the harvest before taking heave will become ṭevel ¹²⁵ First Fruits are an obligation of the farmer (Deut ¹²⁶ A pilgrimage to the Temple at one of the festivals of pilgrimage carries with it the obligation of two sacrifices, the sacrifice of appearance, (ראיון, Deut ¹²⁷ If somebody selected an animal as Passover sacrifice but then it disappeared before the holiday and another animal was dedicated, if the originally dedicated animal reappears it is brought as a well-being offering any time after the holiday (Babli Pesaḥim ¹²⁸ Lev ¹²⁹ In Sifry ¹³⁰ In Lev ¹³¹ The prohibition of substitution is repeated in Lev ¹³² It is sinful to sacrifice an animal outside of the Temple (Deut ¹³³ The disagreement is quoted, in slightly changed form, in Babli Niddah ¹³⁴ Since ṭevel ¹³⁵ R. Eleazar in Ševi‘it

MISHNAH: One may not give olives as heave for oil nor grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say they contain their own heave¹³⁶., but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Heave was given only for olives but not for oil. For the House of Hillel, both olives and oil remain ṭevel

HALAKHAH: There, we stated: “One does not give heave from finished for unfinished,” and here you say so¹³⁶.? Rebbi Illa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of robbing the tribe. What means, because of robbing the tribe? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the exertion¹³⁷. 18:27) “grain from the threshing floor and complete produce from the (oil or wine) press.”. Think about it, if there was a grain of rice¹³⁸ 5:18) decides that cut grain cannot be given as heave for threshed grain. The parallel in Sifry (Num. 121) mentions only grain and wine.? People willingly will pound something. Think about it, if it were in ears? So far goes our question. Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Mana did not say so but he wanted to give heave proportional to the oil and gave only proportional to olives¹³⁹. Think about it, if he gave proportional to the oil? Now he did so, another time he will not do so¹⁴⁰. In addition, his neighbor will see him and say, this one wants to give a lot but I do not want to give a lot.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Heave was given only for olives but not for oil. For the House of Hillel, both olives and oil remain ṭevel ¹³⁷ The Cohen must himself turn the olives into oil, the grapes into wine, but the verse says that heave is given as (Num ¹³⁸ This speaks about grain (mentioned in the verse but not in the Mishnah). One does not give heave from finished produce for unfinished; the rice kernel will not be peeled by threshing the wheat. Hence, even if grain is given as heave after threshing, the Cohen might have some additional work to do. The same argument applies to the next question. Since grain is mentioned, Maimonides (Terumot ¹³⁹ The decree of the House of Hillel is not biblical, not based on the verse, but rabbinic. While heave has no fixed percentage in biblical law, there are rabbinic guidelines on how much to give (Mishnah 4:3). Since olive oil is so much more valuable than raw olives, if the grower gives the required volume of oil as volume of olives, he will have given too little. ¹⁴⁰ We have to explain the reason of the Mishnah to the uneducated; therefore, the explanation is in Aramaic.

Ḥizqiah said, they mentioned only olives for oil and grapes for wine, hence not for any other produce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only olives for oil and grapes for wine but also any other produce¹⁴². Therefore, one must conclude that here starts the discussion of the condition under which the House of Shammai accepts that at least the fruits themselves have been tithed. According to R. Joḥanan, any produce undergoing a manufacturing process, such as date honey and date beer from dates, is covered by Mishnah 4 for the House of Shammay (explanation of R. J. I. Kanievski).. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even immediately¹⁴³.

footnotes: ¹⁴² Ḥizqiah cannot mean that only oil and wine are covered by Mishnah 4, everything else by Mishnah 10, since grain was added to the list both by the Yerushalmi and the Sifry ¹⁴³ Even if the producer would immediately start converting the olives or grapes into oil and wine and hand the Cohen the finished product, it still is no heave for the House of Hillel (Explanation of R. H. Kanievski).

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it¹⁴⁴. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind¹⁴⁵. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be¹⁴⁶, not from profane produce.”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel¹⁴⁷ said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked¹⁴⁸ 1:9. Since heave is given by estimate, it must be given from a well-defined lot. But heave of the tithe is exactly ten percent; it may be given anywhere if the volume, weight, or number of the produce to be tithed has been determined beforehand.. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ Since the House of Shammai accept that heave given for olives and oil is heave for the olives, they must accept that if one gives heave for two physically separate batches of olives, it must be valid. ¹⁴⁵ The argument is valid for one kind, for example olives. But if somebody has olives and grapes, he cannot give heave simultaneously for two batches of each. ¹⁴⁶ He really has to say: “This shall be heave.” At that moment, the batch from which he took the olives becomes freed from the obligation of heave and the next Mishnah will state that heave may be given only from ṭevel ¹⁴⁷ A fifth generation Galilean Amora, quoted only in the Yerushalmi. ¹⁴⁸ Mishnah Ḥallah

There¹⁴⁹, we have stated: “One may not give heave from impure for pure produce.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose¹⁵⁰: “If he gave heave from impure for pure produce, what he did is done.” What does Rebbi Yose say here? If there, where all is lost for the Cohanim¹⁵¹, he says that what he did is done, here, where not all is lost for the Cohanim¹³⁹, so much more? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine. If one did, the House of Shammai say it contains their own heave, but the House of Hillel say his heave is not heave.” Rebbi Yose contradicts himself. There he says, what he did is done; here he says, his heave is not heave. There, impurity is infrequent¹⁵², Introduction). and people will not err to say that one may give heave from the impure on the pure produce. But olives for oil and grapes for wine is frequent; if you say so, one will say that one may give heave of olives for oil and grapes for wine.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ Mishnah 2:2. ¹⁵⁰ Tosephta 3:19. ¹⁵¹ Impure heave must be destroyed, except for impure olive oil which may be used as fuel. ¹³⁹ The decree of the House of Hillel is not biblical, not based on the verse, but rabbinic. While heave has no fixed percentage in biblical law, there are rabbinic guidelines on how much to give (Mishnah 4:3). Since olive oil is so much more valuable than raw olives, if the grower gives the required volume of oil as volume of olives, he will have given too little. ¹⁵² For dry produce, even the produce of the vulgar will not be prepared for impurity. For wine and oil, the product in the hand of the vulgar is impure and the question does not arise; in the hand of the fellow it will be shielded from impurity (cf. Demay

MISHNAH: One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property¹⁵³, all these are exempt from heave and tithes. All examples of this Mishnah are amplifications of the statement that one may not give heave “from what is obligated on what is free from obligation, nor from what is free on what is obligated”.; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken¹⁵⁴, Halakhah 1:4). Maimonides, in the later versions of his Commentary, reads שלא ניטלה. This text is also confirmed by the Kaufmann and Cambridge mss. of the Mishnah. Since the Halakhah does not discuss the text, the original reading cannot be ascertained.; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce¹⁵⁵ which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing¹⁵⁶ or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new¹⁵⁷. 14:22); “You should tithe both tithes of all produce of your land which grows every year,” it follows that one may not give heave and tithes from the produce of one year on that of another (Sifry Deut. 105).; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries¹⁵⁸ or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ As explained in Tractate Peah ¹⁵⁴ While First Tithe is normally taken from produce for which heave was already given, since it is under the obligation of heave of the tithe it still may be used to give the Great Heave as long as heave of the tithe was not given.According to R. Simson, the Mishnah cannot speak of regular tithe which is totally profane after heave of the tithe is taken but must speak of First Tithe taken before threshing, when there was no obligation of Great Heave, and which is only under the obligation of heave of the tithe and becomes profane without Great Heave (Ḥallah ¹⁵⁵ Second tithe and Temple property have only restricted use; once they have been redeemed they are fully profane and free from obligation. ¹⁵⁶ Standing produce is not under any obligation of heave. ¹⁵⁷ Since it says (Deut ¹⁵⁸ Which are free from any obligation by biblical law.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses¹⁵⁹. 18:12 (Halakhah 2:4) and Deut. 26:3 (Halakhah 8:1). The argument here is repeated in Ma’serot 1:1, Ḥallah 1:4, Nedarim 4:10. In Sifry Deut. 109, a similar statement is attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob. in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have while he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ The other two verses are Num

Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and ownerless property all have the same rule. Did one not already state everything¹⁶¹, and ownerless property all have the same rule”. Similarly, one may make a point that the last case, concerning produce of the Land and of foreign countries, is necessary since if we hold that heaves now are only a rabbinical obligation, it is difficult to see what should be the difference between the heave of the Land and that of the surrounding countries where heave is rabbinical all the time. The only questionable part therefore remains that about standing and harvested produce which seems totally superfluous since nobody would ever think that standing produce was subject to heave. The answer is that “standing” does not really mean standing, but produce harvested at a time in its development when it is not yet human food and should have remained standing.? Thus you have to understand the Mishnah: [One may] not [give] from produce one third ripe for produce not yet one third ripe, and when he gave heave, it is not heave. For Ḥizqiah it is a point of contention, for Rebbi Joḥanan it is everybody’s opinion¹⁶² Chapter 5, Notes 20–21, for the rules of gleanings etc., cf. Kilaim Chapter 6, Note 24..

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ In the Mishnah, only “from what is obligated on what is free from obligation but not from what is free on what is obligated” would be needed; everything else is just illustration. However, it has just been stated that the first part is necessary to show that “gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah ¹⁶² The disagreement of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan above, Note 142. For one third grown, cf. Ševi‘it

MISHNAH: Five categories of persons should not give heave but if they gave, their heave is heave. The mute, the drunk, the naked person, the blind, and a man who had an emission of semen should not give heave but if they gave, their heave is heave. One gives heave neither by measure, nor by weight, nor by count¹⁷¹ Chapter 1, Note 9), the verse requires only thought in specifying the heave. “To measure” means to determine the volume.. But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted. One does not give heave in a measuring basket or box, but one may give in them a half or a third¹⁷². One should not give half a seah of heave¹⁷³ Chapter 3, Note 164. Half a seah, three qab, is a commercial measure (as dry measure tarqab, as fluid measure hin). Its size can be estimated in a seah vessel. in a seah vessel because half of it is a [standard] measure.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Since no amount is specified for heave in biblical law (cf. Peah ¹⁷² If no marks for ½ or ⅓ are on the measuring device. ¹⁷³ Cf. Berakhot

HALAKHAH: “Some of these [rules] are because of the benediction, some because the [persons] are unable to give from the best. The mute, the naked person¹⁶⁴ Chapter 3, Note 210., and the man who had an emission¹⁶⁵ Halakhah 3:4 ff. because of the benediction, the blind and the drunk because they cannot give from the best.”¹⁶⁶

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ He may not utter the Divine name, cf. Berakhot ¹⁶⁵ Cf. Berakhot ¹⁶⁶ A much shortened version of Tosephta 3:1–2.

Abba bar Rav Huna said, one who drank [wine] should not pray but if he did pray, his prayer is a supplication. A drunk should not pray but if he did pray, his prayer is blasphemy. What is one who drank [wine]? Someone who drank a quartarius¹⁶⁷, cf. Berakhot, Chapter 3, Note 227. In the Rome ms: “Even if he drank less than a quartarius.”; a drunk is one who drank more. There¹⁶⁸, it is said if he cannot speak before a king. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Assi: May a drunk recite Grace? He said to him (Deut. 11:15): “When you will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”, even if you are sleepy. The question is only, may he recite the Shema‘? Abba bar Avin¹⁶⁹ said, a pious person asked Elijah, may he be remembered for the good, may a naked person recite the Shema‘? He said to him (Deut. 23:15): “He should not see in you a thing of turpitude,” a word of turpitude. Ḥizqiah stated: both¹⁷⁰ for reciting [Grace] and reading [the Shema‘].

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ A quarter of a log ¹⁶⁸ In Babylonia. ¹⁶⁹ He might be identical with Rebbi Abba bar Avina, a Babylonian of the second generation who immigrated into Galilee and was ordained there. ¹⁷⁰ The argument of Elijah applies in both cases.

There¹⁷⁴, we have stated: “One who counts is praiseworthy, he who measures is better, and he who weighs is the best of the three.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, here for the Great Heave, there for the heave of the tithe¹⁷⁵. We have stated so¹⁷⁶ 13b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gimel”), Giṭṭin 30b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gamla”), Bekhorot 58b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gomel”), Menaḥot 54b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gomel”).: “Eliezer ben Gimel says, from where that one does not give heave by measurement, weight, or count? The verse says (Num. 18:27): ‘Your heave will be thought of for you’. You give heave by thought, you do not give heave by measurement, weight, or count. Just as this is for the Great Heave, so it is for the heave of the tithe¹⁷⁷.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Mishnah 4:6. ¹⁷⁵ Which is called “tithe of the tithe”, one tenth of one tenth. ¹⁷⁶ Babli Beẓah ¹⁷⁷ The later Sages, Tannaїm and Amoraїm, disagree with this last statement even though it agrees better with the verse.

Did we not state: “But one may give heave from what was measured, weighed, or counted”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: ¹⁷⁸“A person may measure his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by measure. A person may weigh his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not weigh¹⁷⁹ by weight. A person may count his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not give heave by count.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ Tosephta 3:4, in the name of R. Jehudah. ¹⁷⁹ In the Tosephta, the sentence reads: “A person may weigh his ṭevel and bring it into his house on condition that he not tithe by weight”. This seems to be the correct reading, adopted by all commentators.

MISHNAH: One does not give oil as heave on crushed olives, nor wine on pressed grapes. If one did, it is heave and he has to give another heave¹⁸⁰ and fifth. Therefore, the opinion of Maimonides is preferable, that the second heave has to consist of crushed olives or pressed grapes.. The first one creates *dema‘*¹⁸¹ by itself and one has to pay the fifth¹⁸² but not the second¹⁸³. One may give oil as heave for olives being pickled¹⁹⁶ and wine for grapes to be made into raisins. If one gave oil as heave for table olives, or olives for table olives, or wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes, when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave¹⁹⁷. One does not give heave from finished²⁰⁰,²⁰¹ produce for unfinished, or from unfinished for finished, or from unfinished for unfinished. If heave was given, it is heave.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ According to R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti, the second heave has to be given only from the oil produced from the crushed olives after the first heave was given, and so from the future wine from the already pressed grapes. However, by Tosephta 3:15, in that case the second heave is true heave subject to dema‘ ¹⁸¹ Cf. Mishnah 3:2. ¹⁸² Cf. Mishnah 6:1. ¹⁸³ The second heave is profane food that must be eaten by the Cohen in ritual purity; this is a fine for breaking the rules. ¹⁹⁶ Since for most people, olive oil is more valuable than pickled olives, substitution is permitted. The problem of not completely cured pickles and future raisins will be addressed in the Halakhah. ¹⁹⁷ Since the heave was legitimate when given, it cannot become delegitimized later. ²⁰⁰ Mishnah Ma'serot 1:6, detailing the exact moments when finished produce is subject to heave and tithes. Therefore, grapes to be used to make raisins are definitely unfinished produce. ²⁰¹ Grain and wine, mentioned in Num. 18:27. Since pickled olives and raisins cannot be turned into wine, they are not covered by Mishnah 10. This author will require that raisin wine be made from tithed raisins.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated¹⁸⁴: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless¹⁸⁵. 19). It is true that heave must be eaten by the Cohen in purity but normally immersion in a ritual bath is enough and sprinkling with purification water is not always necessary. All commentators, from the Gaonim to R. S. Lieberman, explain that “fence for the purification water” simply means that one tries to force the olive or wine grower to produce his oil and wine in ritual purity, for if one would permit giving heave from oil (wine) on oil olives (wine grapes), he either would make only a small amount in purity until he has given heave, or he would buy a small quantity of pure olives (grapes) from a fellow and pay the fellow to give heave in his name from his pure fluids. While this explanation seems pertinent, it does not explain the expression “fence for purification water”; it also contradicts the general tendency, clearly apparent in Tractate Demay, not to force the vulgar to conform to standards of observance he could not honestly sustain. But there seems no better explanation.. What is more serious, robbing the tribe¹³⁷. 18:27) “grain from the threshing floor and complete produce from the (oil or wine) press.” or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following¹⁸⁶: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Mishnah 10, contradicting our Mishnah here since in Mishnah 10 no obligation is stated to give heave a second time. ¹⁸⁵ “Purification water” is fresh water with some ashes of the red heifer, used to purify people from the impurity of the dead (Num ¹³⁷ The Cohen must himself turn the olives into oil, the grapes into wine, but the verse says that heave is given as (Num ¹⁸⁶ Tosephta 3:14. In the first case, Mishnah 4, his heave was not heave but he has to give heave only once and has no monetary loss.

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁷ and is subject to the fifth, but not the second one. From the latter one has to remove the tithes. Rebbi Yose says …” This Tosephta cannot be the source of the discussion here (as asserted by R. Eliahu Wilna and R. Moses Margalit) since the implication for R. Yose would be the opposite of what is asserted here and it is seen in the next paragraph that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, R. Yose considers the second heave conditional and real heave. A Tosephta text closer to the Yerushalmi is reported in מלאכת שלמה (R. Solomon Adani) on the Mishnah.: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously¹⁸⁸, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously¹⁸⁹: “he must give heave a second time”, but there is no supporting manuscript evidence. Of all the explanations of this confusing paragraph, the best is Tosefta Ki-fshutah pp. 332–333. but the “fence” for purification water lightly¹⁹⁰!

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ A quite different version is in Tosephta 3:14: “One does not give oil as heave on crushed olives, nor wine on pressed grapes. If one gave, it is heave and he has to give another heave. The first one creates dema‘ ¹⁸⁸ While Mishnah 4 cannot be R. Meïr’s, it is assumed that Mishnah 8 is. ¹⁸⁹ It is obvious that originally, the Yerushalmi must have read in R. Yose’s baraita ¹⁹⁰ This is established in the next paragraph.

There¹⁹¹ 5:2. The other four examples refer to Mishnaiot in Kilaim,Ḥallah,Miqwaot,Pesaḥim. we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten¹⁹². One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough¹⁹³.

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ Mishnah Idiut ¹⁹² Everybody agrees that fowl meat is not meat in the biblical sense since it says: “You may not cook a kid goat in its mother’s milk” and birds have no milk. Nevertheless, as rabbinic “fence”, one may not eat birds’ meat with any milk product. ¹⁹³ If the heave given first can be extended to cover the oil produced from the olives after heave was separated, it follows that R. Yose assumes that olives which were started in purity will be kept in purity until the last drop of oil has been extracted and the heave is legitimate as given from “pure on pure.” It follows that R. Yose rejects any consideration of a “fence for purification water”; he requires a genuine second heave only if either the first one was eaten or if the additional oil was made impure; in the latter case one may not use the first heave following Mishnah 2:1.

It was stated¹⁹⁴ discussed in the meantime. A similar text appears in Tosephta 3:14. Since the Great Heave was already taken the first time, “heaves” here must refer to the heave of the tithe.: “The second [heave] should not be eaten until one takes from it heaves and tithes.” What is the status of the first? From what was stated¹⁹⁵, the full text is: “If one gives heave of olives on olives which will be crushed or from grapes which will be pressed, it is heave and he has to give a second one. The first creates dema‘ but not the second. The first is subject to the fifth but not the second; but one has to give it a name. If he came back and made the first olives into oil or the grapes into wine, he does not have to give a second heave.” “To give a name” means to make a declaration that heave or tithes should be valid for such and such produce. Since one really should give heave and tithes from the finished product, if the oil is produced from the olives for which heave (or tithes) were taken, the name may be extended later to the finished oil or wine.: “If he came back and made the first olives into oil or the grapes into wine, he gives it a name and does not have to give a second heave.” That means that he has to give a name to his tithes.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ This now refers back to the Mishnah, not the baraitot ¹⁹⁵ In the same Tosephta, though not the origin of this baraita

We have stated after this¹⁹⁸: “One does not give heave from finished produce for unfinished;” there it is for the past, therefore not to start¹⁹⁹, [and here] even to start? If you say, is this different from when it is finished, did we not state²⁰⁰ 1:6, detailing the exact moments when finished produce is subject to heave and tithes. Therefore, grapes to be used to make raisins are definitely unfinished produce.: “Dried pomegranate kernels, raisins, and carob from when he made an orderly heap”? Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: From finished product on unfinished is only forbidden from threshing floor and wine (or oil) press²⁰¹. 18:27. Since pickled olives and raisins cannot be turned into wine, they are not covered by Mishnah 10. This author will require that raisin wine be made from tithed raisins..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Mishnah 10. ¹⁹⁹ In Mishnah 10, it is stated: “If one gave heave, it is heave”, which means that it is legitimized after the fact but cannot be accepted if done in defiance of the law. But in Mishnah 9, the language is positive, that everybody is free to give heave. ²⁰⁰ Mishnah Ma‘serot ²⁰¹ Grain and wine, mentioned in Num

What is the basis of his giving heave²⁰², on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai²⁰³: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives²⁰⁴,-adis, f., “pickled olives, olives swimming in brine.” as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath²⁰⁵ Chapter 1, Note 188), it is a punishable offense only if a minimal amount is carried. The minimal amount is defined as a quartarius for drinks and the volume of an average dried fig for solid food. The baraita quoted here agrees with the text of the Tosephta, not the Yerushalmi.? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

footnotes: ²⁰² While there is no measure of heave indicated in biblical law, Mishnah 5:3 indicates the rabbinical standard of an estimated 2% of the volume for which heave is to be given. Is the basis the volume of oil that could have been extracted if the olives had not been pickled or is it the volume of pitted finished olives? ²⁰³ A similar statement is Tosephta 3:15, but there Rebbi is reported to require heave proportional to oil, Rabban Simeon proportional to the solid food (“the food exluding the pits”). ²⁰⁴ In the Tosephta, the Vienna ms. has קולפסין, the Erfurt ms. קלופסין , the printed editionsקלפין . The word is usually identified with Greek κολυμβάς, ἥ, Latin colymbas ²⁰⁵ If one moves something from private to public domain or more than four cubits in the public domain (cf. Kilaim

Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Hillel: We have stated in support of the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah¹⁸⁶: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” And we have stated¹⁹⁷: “If one gave oil as heave for table olives, olives for table olives, wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave.” Because he changed his mind! Therefore, if he did not change his mind he has to give a second heave.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ Tosephta 3:14. In the first case, Mishnah 4, his heave was not heave but he has to give heave only once and has no monetary loss. ¹⁹⁷ Since the heave was legitimate when given, it cannot become delegitimized later.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product²⁰⁶. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it²⁰⁷ for heave of the tithe and may not be eaten unless that heave is taken.. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian²⁰⁸ in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there²⁰⁹ 2:5.: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce¹⁴⁸ 1:9. Since heave is given by estimate, it must be given from a well-defined lot. But heave of the tithe is exactly ten percent; it may be given anywhere if the volume, weight, or number of the produce to be tithed has been determined beforehand., like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing²¹⁰? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law²¹¹.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ The verse speaks of heave of the tithe and implies that the merit of heave of the tithe which accrues for the Levite is identical with that of the Israel giving heave from the threshing floor. This implies that the Israel gives only from the threshing floor, when all agricultural work connected with the harvest is complete. ²⁰⁷ While heave and tithes are due only after cleaning up the threshed grain, using unthreshed ears for a regular meal would show that the ears are the finished product and subject to heave and tithes. But untithed ears may be eaten as a snack. Here, it is stated that giving heave and first tithe in any form declares the product as finished. If the tithe is tithe, then it is ṭevel ²⁰⁸ A Galilean Amora of the fifth generation, student of R. Jonah, possibly Ἀσίων. ²⁰⁹ Mishnah Bikkurim ¹⁴⁸ Mishnah Ḥallah ²¹⁰ The end of threshing, when the threshed grain has been collected and assembled in neat heaps. ²¹¹ The ears never were threshed, much less smoothed.