MISHNAH: One does not put a fig cake or figs¹ into muries², Chapter 1, Note 156. because he would destroy them³ but one may add wine to muries. One does not use olive oil as base for perfume⁴ but one may use wine as base for ὀινόμελι⁵. One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes it; Rebbi Jehudah permits it because he improves it.

footnotes: ¹ Of heave. The entire Mishnah deals only with heave. ² Fish sauce, cf. Demay ³ Fig sap is used as a spice; the figs are then discarded. It is forbidden to use heave for anything but food. Spices which are consumed in their entirety are permitted. ⁴ This is no longer food. ⁵ “Wine-honey”, a mixture of wine, honey, and spices. The Greek has been hebraized, showing the relationship between יין (Arabic וַין “black raisin”) and Ϝοιν-.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put fig cake or figs into muries”, etc. It was stated⁶: “One puts fig cake or figs into muries in the way one uses spices on condition he not squeeze them to extract their juice⁷. But spices are permitted, for that is what they are used for. A bundle of spices put into one pot and then transferred to another, if their taste is lost they are permitted⁸, otherwise forbidden.”

footnotes: ⁶ Tosephta 9:7 where, however, the last sentence is completely different. ⁷ A rabbinic prohibition, that one should not treat heave figs as he would profane figs and throw them away after squeezing out the juice. ⁸ If heave spices are used repeatedly, they reach a stage where they will no longer act as spices and are permitted to lay people.

What is the difference between this and dill? Did we not state⁹ 3:4.: “Dill which gave its taste [to a dish] in a pot no longer is under the rules of heave and does not accept the impurity of food.” They gave to you from your own. From biblical law it should not accept the impurity of foodstuffs¹⁰; they said that it should accept the impurity of foodstuffs and they said that after it transferred its taste it is disregarded.

footnotes: ⁹ Mishnah Uqeẓin ¹⁰ In the opinion of the Babli, dill was never used for cooking but only as raw addition to a dessert. Solid food used only raw is not subject to impurity. Since the impurity of dill is rabbinical, it cannot be considered for inferences about other substances.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This¹¹2:6 (fol. 41c). is Rebbi’s, as we have stated¹² is similar to a statement of Tosephta 9:6.: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids¹³ since it will ruin the taste.. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

footnotes: ¹¹ The sentence in the Mishnah which permits heave wine in fish sauce. This and the following paragraphs are also in Avodah Zarah ¹² The last sentence of this baraita ¹³ In his opinion, wine is not usually added to muries

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden¹⁵ 2:5, everybody agrees that Gentile muries is forbidden. R. Meїr forbids usufruct from Gentile muries, the Sages forbid muries only as food.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles¹⁶ 2:9.. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.¹⁷ 34b, state only: “One may buy muries only from a professional.” Rashi explains that this refers to a Gentile professional producer. The Babli specifies that this holds only for good quality muries made with fish fat, which would be spoiled by the addition of wine.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional¹⁸ as explained in the parallel in Avodah Zarah 2:6. Tosephta (loc.cit.) and Babli (39b) note that at a non-professional Jew’s one may eat muries without asking. it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows¹⁹ trade.. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted²⁰, usufruct of paganism is forbidden²¹.

footnotes: ¹⁵ In Mishnah Avodah Zarah ¹⁶ Forbidden in Mishnah Avodah Zarah ¹⁷ Tosephta 4:13, Babli Avodah Zarah ¹⁸ A Gentile; he might use wine to clarify the muries ¹⁹ He knows for sure that the seller is a professional in the muries ²⁰ If the heave wine cannot be tasted, it is permitted to laymen. ²¹ If libation wine cannot be tasted, or even if it spoils the taste, it still is forbidden to all Jews.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers²². We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

footnotes: ²² The paragraph discusses the statement of the Sages who in the Mishnah prohibit cooking heave wine because “it diminishes.” The paragraph was explained in Chapter 2, Halakhah 5, Notes 118–119.

Jehudah ben Keni²³, nor in Chapter 2., Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because he reduces the number of drinkers.

footnotes: ²³ This name probably is an error of transmission. The sentence is not in the parallel in Avodah Zarah

MISHNAH: Date honey, apple wine, vinegar from winter grapes²⁴, and any other fruit juices from heave, Rebbi Eliezer subjects to [repayment of] value and fifth²⁵, but Rebbi Joshua frees [from payment]. Rebbi Eliezer declares them impure as drinks²⁶, Chapter 2, Note 141. The seven fluids subject to impurity are enumerated in Mishnah Makhširin 6:4: Dew, water (including human body fluids), wine, olive oil, blood, milk, bees’ honey. These fluids are called “drinks”, following the verse Lev. 11:34.. Rebbi Joshua said, the Sages did not enumerate seven fluids as one counts raw materials for perfumes²⁷ but they said, seven fluids are impure, all other fluids are pure.

footnotes: ²⁴ Late grapes that never became sweet enough to be eaten or used to make wine. ²⁵ If consumed by a non-Cohen in error, cf. Mishnah 6:1. ²⁶ “Impure” means (a) potentially impure if exposed to impurity and (b) able to prepare solid food for impurity; “pure” means not subject to impurity; cf. Demay ²⁷ Which the perfumer chooses according to his own wishes.

HALAKHAH: They want to say that they differ about the fifth but Rebbi Joshua agrees about the principal²⁸ 11:2).. They differ after the fact²⁹, but before the fact Rebbi Joshua agrees³⁰. But we have stated³¹: “Rebbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes, but Rebbi Joshua frees it.” Here, when they obtained it after it became ṭevel, there before it became ṭevel³², R. Joshua holds that date honey itself cannot become subject to heave and tithes. But if the honey exuded from the dates after the dates were given as heave, R. Joshua agrees that it remains heave and is forbidden to laymen. The answer is thoroughly impractical since Mishnah Ma‘serot 1:2 states that dates become subject to tithes as soon as they contain moisture; it is difficult to see how honey could exude from dates harvested dry even if they were left to ripen in storage..

footnotes: ²⁸ Since the statement is formulated as tentative, if the farmer uses his own date honey from dates destined for the Cohen, he does not pay at all. But if a third person uses it, he has to pay its value as he would for any robbery (Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David, Terumot ²⁹ About the amount the transgressing layman has to pay. ³⁰ That date honey made from heave dates is forbidden to laymen. ³¹ Tosephta 9:8; only the statement of R. Eliezer and that of R. Nathan in the next paragraph. ³² If the date honey was taken before the dates themselves became subject to heave and tithes as explained in the first chapter of Ma‘serot

Rebbi Eliezer agrees that if he tithed the dates, their honey is permitted even in Spain³³. This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to the dates. “Rebbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes.” We have stated³¹: “Rebbi Nathan says, not that Rebbi Eliezer subjects it to tithes but Rebbi Eliezer says he should not eat from the tithes until he also tithed the honey.” This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional³⁴ to honey and dates.

footnotes: ³³ If the dates were tithed when dry and the honey was produced later from exported dates, the honey remains permitted. {Since the text is not punctuated, it would be possible to read: If he tithed the dates even in Spain, their honey would be permitted. However, this interpretation is impossible since fruits of the Land cannot be tithed in Spain, not even in Apamea in Syria.} ³¹ Tosephta 9:8; only the statement of R. Eliezer and that of R. Nathan in the next paragraph. ³⁴ In volume.

“Rebbi Eliezer declares it³⁵ impure as drink.” It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, Rebbi Eliezer does not declare it impure as drink; what did they disagree about? If some drink³⁶ fell into it, then Rebbi Eliezer declares it impure as drink but the Sages say, it follows the majority³⁷.”

footnotes: ³⁵ The Tosephta (9:8) makes it clear that only date honey is being discussed. ³⁶ In the Tosephta: “Water”. ³⁷ It is not a “drink” as long as there is more than 50% date honey.

In the opinion of Rebbi Nathan, Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Eliezer, all three said the same. Rebbi Meїr, for he says³⁸ 7:2, presumed to be R. Meїr’s teaching, which states that if a miqweh is short one half seah of the required 40 seah of water (cf. Chapter 4, Note 112, Chapter 19, Note 139), if one half of a seah of fruit juice fell in, the status of the miqweh is not changed. If the character of fruit juice could be disregarded (being less than 1 in 60 of the total amount), then the watered down fruit juice could make up the difference., “fruit juice never is disregarded.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated³⁹ 6:3. Usually, fish sauce is impure since fish, coming out of the water, is always prepared for impurity (Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141.) If it is known that the fish sauce was extracted from pure fish by people strictly keeping the laws of purity, then the fish sauce is pure and, since it is not one of the “seven fluids” (Note 26), cannot become impure. But if any amount of water is added, it is prepared for impurity.: “Pure fish sauce into which fell the smallest amount of water is impure.” And Rebbi Eliezer here.

footnotes: ³⁸ It seems that this refers to the anonymous Mishnah Miqwa’ot ³⁹ Mishnah Makhširin

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.⁴⁰. 11:34: “Any food that can be eaten, if water comes upon it it may become impure, and any drink that can be drunk can become impure in any vessel.” For the notion of preparation for impurity based on this and the nearby verses, cf. Note 26. The argument ascribed here to the rabbis is difficult to understand and is not found in any of the parallel sources; it is not followed up and is superseded later by the documented opinion of the rabbis. The emphasis is only on the arguments of R. Eliezer, to show that R. Eliezer’s position in the Mishnah is not practice, even if R. Eliezer’s position in the Tosephta would be accepted because he is supported by R. Meїr and R. Eliezer ben Jacob. {Maimonides, Hilkhot Ṭum’at Okhlin 2:14, follows R. Eliezer; the interpretation here follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.} In Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(1), fruit juices are excluded since the verse speaks only of “water”. It is concluded that only drinks described by a single noun can be meant. Blood is included [loc.cit. 8(4)] since it is compared to water in Ps. 110:7. Fruit juices are excluded since they are called “fruit water”.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included⁴¹. The detailed description of the rule, that a general statement followed by a particular one applies only to that particular one, is no longer connected with the name of R. Ismael; it represents the opinion of the Sages. For an application, cf. Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 20. It is asserted here and in Nazir 6:2 that R. Ismael disagrees with the interpretation of the Sages and holds that the particular statement is only an illustration. The concurrence of both mss. here and the one available ms. in Nazir shows that the statement cannot be amended away and that in the Introduction to Sifra, only paragraphs 1 and 2 are attributable to R. Ismael. In our case, “any drink” is taken as a general statement, “that can be drunk” as a particular one.? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included⁴². Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea⁴³ (Hoboken, NJ, 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996), entry Perigord.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food⁴⁴ 9(1). Since spoiled food is no longer food, it is not subject to the impurity of food., so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start⁴⁵, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure⁴⁶, Note 50, that water is subject to impurity as long as it is acceptable to animals and birds.? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about⁴⁷ 3:1: “All that is exclusively human food needs preparation [for impurity] but no thought.” Once prepared for impurity it automatically is ready to accept impurity. Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 1:5: “Foodstuffs [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than drinks, and drinks [in certain aspects] have more restrictive rules than foodstuffs. Food may have handles [the peduncles of apples, pears, etc. become impure with the fruit], they do not need thought to be food.” Any fluid other than water is a “drink” only if made for human consumption.? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure⁴⁸! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought⁴⁹ 3:13, and the Sages in Mishnah Ḥallah 4:10, is treated as standard food if prepared as such. This means that vetch becomes human food only by a combination of intent and action, never by intent alone, in contrast to drinks., what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus⁵⁰ 8(4).: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Lev ⁴¹ “A general statement followed by a particular one” is the heading of one of the 13 hermeneutical rules of R. Ismael, listed in the Introduction to Sifra ⁴² This is a theoretical statement, not of relevance here, since the particular is not followed by a second general statement. However, it opens a window for a possible study of the development of the hermeneutical rules. ⁴³ He is mentioned only here. Greek παρήγορος “comforting”, a sobriquet for Menaḥem; cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins ⁴⁴ Sifra Šemini Pereq ⁴⁵ The expression is unclear since foodstuffs spoiled when coming into being never were food and, therefore, never subject to impurity of food. ⁴⁶ This argument refers to the quote from Sifra ⁴⁷ Mishnah Uqeẓin ⁴⁸ Since nobody will want them as human drink. ⁴⁹ This refers to vetch which is human food only in times of famine and, according to R. Jehudah in Tosephta Uqeẓin ⁵⁰ Sifra Šemini Parašah

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that if a drink is stinking from the start it is impure. But did we not state⁵¹ 9:3, speaking of the sap of olives which is not oil but fruit juice. Even though it does not smell badly, it is useless and we see that R. Eliezer declares useless fruit sap to be impure. In the Mishnah, R. Simeon disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and holds that R. Eliezer declares olive sap pure. Since the Yerushalmi lacks this statement, it seems to reject the statements of R. Simeon and the colleagues.: “The fluid oozing out from them Rebbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages impure”? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages about the waters of the ocean; even if they are stinking the Torah calls them water (Gen. 1:10): “The collection of water He called oceans.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that beet juice⁵² Chapter 1, Note 64. does not prepare.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Mishnah Ṭahorot ⁵² תרד (Hebrew) and שׂלק (Arabic) are the same; cf. Kilaim

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If somebody would say to you there are eight drinks⁵³, tell him, are not dew and water the same? But they counted them as two! If we had another⁵⁴, would they not have counted it? If another did exist⁵⁵, would they not have counted it?

footnotes: ⁵³ The seven drinks which prepare for impurity (Note 26) and fruit juice. ⁵⁴ Fruit juice, known to us from the controversy of R. Eliezer and the Sages. ⁵⁵ Unknown to us.

MISHNAH: One does not make honey from dates, or wine from apples, or vinegar from winter grapes, nor does one change any fruit of heave or second tithe from the way it grew except olives and grapes⁵⁸. 29:23 declaring the fruits of the first three years after planting a tree forbidden for all use refers to “fruit-bearing trees”; in Mishnah Kilaim 7:6 there is an opinion that exludes all trees except olive trees, vines, and fig trees from this category.. Nobody endures the forty⁵⁷ because of ‘orlah, except for produce of olives and grapes⁵⁸. 29:23 declaring the fruits of the first three years after planting a tree forbidden for all use refers to “fruit-bearing trees”; in Mishnah Kilaim 7:6 there is an opinion that exludes all trees except olive trees, vines, and fig trees from this category.; one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for products from olives and grapes. Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes⁵⁹ 120b, all these rules are said to follow R. Joshua who derives all rules from those of heave.. Nothing is presented on the altar except what comes from olives and grapes. The stalks of fresh figs, dried figs, kelisin⁶⁰ 1:6 reads קליסין and defines these as pears. Maimonides: small figs. Rashi (Ḥulin 67a) about כלונס, adopted here by R. Simson: cedar kernels. Rashi’s definition clearly does not fit here. Maimonides’s interpretation seems to be a guess. Löw thinks of licorice. {Cf. Greek κέρασος, Latin cerasus, “cherry tree, cherry” (E. G.).}, and carobs are forbidden to laymen⁶¹.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ The verse Lev ⁵⁷ Is whipped 39 times if convicted of breaking a biblical law. ⁵⁸ The verse Lev ⁵⁹ In the Babli, Ḥulin ⁶⁰ The Gaonic commentary to Uqeẓin ⁶¹ If the fruit itself is heave.

HALAKHAH: ⁶² 4:12, on the Mishnah: “Joseph the Cohen brought his First Fruits as olive oil and wine and these were not accepted in the Temple.” That Mishnah seems to contradict the Mishnah here; cf. Šiṭṭah Mequbeẓet,Ḥulin 120b, Note 11. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for those made from olives and grapes,” even after it became property of the owners⁶³. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’⁶⁴”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁶² The main occurrence of this paragraph is in Ḥallah ⁶³ The priests serving in the Temple. Since First Fruits were designated as such while still growing, they were already dedicated when harvested and never were property of the farmer. ⁶⁴ Since the commandment is repeated, it means “bring in any shape or form.” ⁶⁵ In the interpretation of the Babli, the entire discussion is only about grapes. It is difficult to decide whether this is also the point of view of the Yerushalmi.

“⁶⁶ Pure heave olives should be made into oil, impure should not; grapes either pure or impure should not be processed [into wine], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob says in his name, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and pure grapes should be processed, but not impures ones. Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and grapes should be processed, whether pure or impure⁶⁷ should be processed, they disagreed about impure ones which Rebbi Eliezer says should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be.. Rebbi (Joḥanan)⁶⁸ said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed and impure grapes should not be processed; they disagreed about impure olives and pure grapes where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed.” They all form a majority against Rebbi Meïr about pure grapes, that they should be processed. Why does he say, they should not be processed? They are more valuable as food than as drink. They all form a majority against Rebbi Jehudah about impure grapes, that they should not be processed. Why does he say, they should be processed? To be able to use seeds and skins⁶⁹. About impure olives, Rebbi and Rebbi Meïr form one group, Rebbi Jacob and Rebbi Jehudah another one. How does one act⁷⁰?

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Tosephta 9:9, in slightly different formulation. ⁶⁷ In the Tosephta: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives and grapes ⁶⁸ This is clearly in error since the entire statement is tannaïtic and in the discussion, as well as in the Tosephta, it is labelled Rebbi’s. The error is an old one since it is in both mss. ⁶⁹ The grape juice clearly has to be discarded since it is impure and cannot be used as drink. Since it is fresh and unfermented, it cannot be used as spray. But the seeds and the skins can be used as fuel. ⁷⁰ No answer is given; the decision is prorogated for the Sages at the time of the Messiah.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, our Mishnah⁷² if they stick in the food. All [statements] by Rebbi Zeïra about heaves and purity are traditions in the name of Rebbi Eleazar.

footnotes: ⁷² Mishnah 4. If the pedicles are not part of the fruit they are considered as wood and not included in the sanctity of heave.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected⁷³, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected⁷³, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food⁷⁴. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place⁷⁵. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain⁸⁹. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]⁹⁰. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay⁹¹; cf. Demay, Introduction. be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth⁹², or about 8.33 cm3. Less than this amount he burns or leaves for a Cohen to pick it up himself..

footnotes: ⁷³ As food. ⁷³ As food. ⁷⁴ An example is given in the next sentence. ⁷⁵ Since the remainder is coarse flour, it is food for somebody else and may not be thrown away. ⁸⁹ Most Mishnah mss. read לתוכה חולין, but the text of the Leyden mss. and Venice print is supported by some of the best ms. evidence, the Mishnah edited by Low, the Munich ms. of the Babli, and the Parma ms. of the Mishnah. The text does not mean that the grains collected in sweeping the storage bin can be added to profane grain. ⁹⁰ If one empties a pitcher of heave oil or wine, one holds it until at the end three distinct drops have fallen out. Then one may assume that the pitcher is empty. But if instead of refilling the pitcher with profane fluid one lets it lie on its side, then any fluid that accumulates is heave. ⁹¹ The only gift to the Cohen from demay ⁹² 1/64 of a log

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan, the Mishnah deals with seeds of pears and paradise pears⁷⁶ “Crustumerian pear”; cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 73. Their seeds are eaten with the fruits.. Rebbi Eleazar said, you can even say the pit of unripe dates if they have not been sucked⁷⁷. But did we not state, “and so bones of sacrifices;” can you say if they have not been sucked⁷⁸? No, about cartilage⁷⁹ in wings. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of cartilage in wings.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Greek χρυστουμῖνος, Latin crustuminus ⁷⁷ If these are separated from the dates, some fruit flesh will cling to the pits. This will have to be eaten before the pit loses its sanctity. ⁷⁸ If the bones contain marrow, they may not be discarded. If they contain no marrow and are clean, nothing can be taken from them. ⁷⁹ Which is edible.

“These are the new ones, all the time people regularly mash them. Rebbi Aḥa said, up to thirty days.⁸⁰”

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Tosephta 10:4. This refers to the Mishnah stating that new fine bran is forbidden to laymen. The Tanna R. Aḥa (Aḥai) mentioned here is one of the students of R. Aqiba.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is its measure⁸¹ of fine flour per seah of wheat grain.. But did we not state⁸² 4:11, on the verse Lev. 22:7: “For it is his food.” This is interpreted that the Cohen may treat heave as he would treat profane food. If he eats profane bread only from the whitest flour and vegetables only if they are free from all blemishes, he does not have to lower his standards for heave.: “One produces fine flour from wheat as he wants it, he cleans vegetables⁸³ as he wants it.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he reduces it to its heave⁸⁴ per seah, i. e., a yield of 16.67%, a very selective Cohen will be able to refine it to a yield of only 10%, corresponding to heave of the tithe.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: Here in years of famine⁸⁵, there in years of plenty.

footnotes: ⁸¹ One or two qab ⁸² Sifra Emor Pereq ⁸³ The Cohen may remove the outer leaves of heave vegetables and eat only the perfect ones. ⁸⁴ While the standard is 1 qab ⁸⁵ The standard of the Mishnah has to be followed in years of famine; any refinement is possible in a year of plenty.

There⁸⁶, we have stated: “The center parts of water melon and what is cleaned from vegetables of heave, Rebbi Dosa permits to laymen but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They taught that only for what is cleaned from vegetables of gardeners⁸⁷ 4:2.). But for what is cleaned from vegetables of private people, even the rabbis will agree. Rebbi Abun asked: Is it not reasonable that this refers only to the Great Heave, but for heave of the tithe⁸⁸ torn-off leaves do not count for leaves, neither do torn-off stems for stems?

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Mishnah Idiut 3:3, Tosephta 10:2. ⁸⁷ Since they clean large quantities of vegetables for the market, they will find a use for the leaves taken off. If they are of heave, they do not lose their status. But in private households, the cleanings of vegetables are garbage and garbage of heave is profane (R. Abraham ben David, Commentary to Sifra Šemini Pereq ⁸⁸ Which has to be exactly 10%. Therefore, the leaves to be discarded never were sanctified as heave and the Sages agree with R. Dosa in that case.

There⁹³ 5:9. If somebody buys wine or oil and the grocer filled a measuring pitcher, he has to empty his pitcher into the buyer’s vessel until three separate drops fall out at the end., we have stated: “If he turned it and it accumulated, that belongs to the seller.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “belongs to the seller” but “belongs to the buyer”, as you say here⁹⁴. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, it is because of abandonment⁹⁵ 87b, this argument is credited to R. Abbahu.. Is it the same for consecrated food? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is the same for consecrated food⁹⁶.

footnotes: ⁹³ Baba Batra ⁹⁴ Since what would accumulate is heave. ⁹⁵ Since the buyer does not expect more than what he had when three drops fell out, the remainder that could be picked up after waiting several hours is not part of the sale contract and belongs to the seller. In the Babli, Baba Batra ⁹⁶ Oil and wine for sacrifices have to be poured out until three separate drops fall out.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted⁹⁷. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: That log of oil of the leper, must he give it back or not⁹⁸(commonly translated as “leprosy”) has to bring a sacrifice including one log of oil (Lev. 14:10,21). No instructions are given in the text what to do with the oil left over after the conclusion of the purification ceremony. “Giving back” means waiting until all remaining oil has collected at the bottom of the flask and then emptying it.? If you say he must give it back, and he did not, he transgresses by default. If you say he need not give it back, and he did, he transgresses by excess⁹⁹ if the rules are not followed. Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so¹⁰⁰, but Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. That log of oil of the leper belongs to those [consecrated foods] which can be permitted and you say he must give it back? That means, he must give back and if he did not, he transgresses by default.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Consecrated foods which can be permitted are those which must be eaten by Cohanim after certain actions have been taken. In general, a flour offering must be eaten by Cohanim after a handful of the offering and its incense have been burned on the altar. Between dedication and burning, the flour and its accompanying oil are forbidden for everybody. However, the flour offering of a Cohen must be completely burned on the altar; it is consecrated food which never can be permitted. Also, wine offerings are poured completely on the altar; they never can be permitted. ⁹⁸ The person healed from ẓara‘at ⁹⁹ In both cases it will not be an exact log ¹⁰⁰ For him it is not an unresolved question but a straightforward conclusion.

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: A pot¹⁰¹. 6:21 that clay vessels cannot be cleansed from impurities. in which heave was cooked¹⁰² is cleansed three times with boiling water and that is enough. Rebbi Abba said, one does not learn from this for carcass meat¹⁰³. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Abba: Heave implies a deadly sin, carcass meat is a simple prohibition, and you say so? He said to me, it follows him who says, they accepted tithes voluntarily¹⁰⁴ Chapter 6, Notes 11–13. It is the operative opinion of the Yerushalmi that the duties upon the Land have rabbinic character only as long as the entire Jewish people do not live in the Land and the land distribution of Joshua has not been reestablished. Therefore, eating carcass meat which is a biblical prohibition is a much more severe sin than unauthorized use of rabbinic heave..

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ A clay pot. In general, one deduces from Lev ¹⁰² In order to use the same pot for profane food available to Non-Cohanim, the remains of heave which entered the porous walls have to be removed. ¹⁰³ A clay pot in which non-kosher meat was cooked cannot be rehabilitated to be used for kosher food. ¹⁰⁴ R. Eleazar in Ševi‘it

Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: We have stated: “If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave,” and here you say so? He said to him, here through the fire it becomes inedible and disappears¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Repeated heating of boiling water will not only destroy the remaining heave as food, when it loses its sancity, but also remove it. This cannot be compared to the Mishnah where the heave oil accumulates in the cold vessel.

“¹⁰⁷ 97a. Each of the three texts represents a different tradition. Yeast of heave, the first and second are forbidden, the third is permitted. When has this been said? If he added water. But if he did not add water, even the third is forbidden¹⁰⁸ Yeast of second tithe, the first is forbidden but the second permitted. Rebbi Meïr said, the second by imparting taste¹⁰⁹.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, the consecrated is like the accumulated¹¹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Tosephta 10:12, Babli Baba Batra ¹⁰⁸ It is difficult to understand what “first, second, third” means if no fresh water was added to the wine barrel. The reference is to afterwine obtained by pouring water over the pomace remaining in the vat after the wine was drained. It is assumed that the volume of afterwine obtained does not exceed the volume of water put in; in that case the afterwine is presumed not to contain any heave wine and the prohibition of the first and second afterwines is only rabbinical. ¹⁰⁹ The second afterwine transmits the holiness of second tithe as long as it can be tasted in a mixture; cf. Halakhah 2. ¹¹⁰ All after wine made from grapes that are intrinsically sacred (in that they belong to the altar and cannot be redeemed) remains sacred in any amount. There is no other source indicating that afterwine was ever made from intrinsically sacred grapes.

“¹¹² 5:4 and Babli Zebaḥim 79b: The clay pot of the sufferer from gonorrhoea, the first and second rinses are impure but the third is pure. When has this been said? If he did put water in it, but if he did not put water in it, even the tenth is impure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, even if no water was put in (but other, not impure people, used it), the third is pure. It is clear that the Yerushalmi tradition cannot be reconciled with the Tosephta-Babli tradition. The concurrence of the mss. shows that the tradition is original. The Yerushalmi holds that water in a clay chamberpot becomes impure with the original impurity of the urine of a sufferer from gonorrhoea (Lev. 15); hence, presence or absence of remainders of the urine in the walls of the chamberpot becomes irrelevant. The clay pot of the sufferer from discharge, the first is impure but the second pure. When has this been said? If he did not put water in it, but if he put water in it even the tenth is impure.”

footnotes: ¹¹² Tosephta Ṭahorot

¹¹³ to be delivered to the Cohen. Rebbi Yudan, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s sister, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Less than that he puts in his fire¹¹⁴. Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Solid food corresponding to a cooked easy egg¹¹⁵ 8:5, is defined in the Babli (Šabbat 80b) as a chicken egg, reputed to be quickest to be cooked among all kosher eggs.. That means that the volume of an egg¹¹⁶29 cm3. is valid in impurity, but pure the minutest amount must be delivered. If it is demay; but if it is certain it must be delivered impure or pure, much or little.”

footnotes: ¹¹³ This paragraph deals with the amounts of heave of the tithe of demay ¹¹⁴ This sentence also is in Tosephta 10:6, which more or less parallels the statement attributed to R. Jehudah in this paragraph. ¹¹⁵ “Easy egg”, mentioned in Mishnah Šabbat ¹¹⁶ Even a small chicken egg has a volume of at least 3.5 times 1/64 log ≈

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens¹¹⁷. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal¹¹⁸ may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn”¹²⁴ in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father¹²⁵, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases¹²⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ If these animals are possessions of the Cohen, as explained in the Halakhah. The determining factor is ownership. ¹¹⁸ At the time of transfer of ownership, the value of the cow was appraised but not paid. The Israel will fatten the cow. If it is finally sold, the original owner will receive the appraised value and part of the added value. Since there is transfer of ownership, some rules will have to be observed to avoid giving the Cohen’s part of the added value the status of forbidden interest. ¹²⁴ Impure olive oil of heave which must be burned. It may be used for lighting. Since Cohanim also use public institutions such as synagogues, houses of study, and public roads, their consent to the use of impure oil for the institutions is implied. ¹²⁵ She is a member of the Cohen’s family and stands in his stead in matters of heave. ¹²⁶ The Halakhah will discuss the four possible opinions.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.¹¹⁹. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, he may eat of it; whoever is born in his house, they shall eat of his bread.” The ownership must be 100% the Cohen’s.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”¹²⁰ 5:6: “They shall eat,” they but not an animal. I could think an animal could not eat [heave] vetch? The verse says, “a living being”.. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”¹²¹. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave¹²²? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave¹²³.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ (Lev ¹²⁰ The argument is elliptic. It is a little more explicit in Sifra Emor Parašah ¹²¹ Vetch is human food only in times of famine; fenugreek is human food. R. Joḥanan follows the argument of Note 117 to exclude feeding animals heave of human food. ¹²² Why should an animal given to the Cohen on appraisal be fed heave vetch if the Israel has a continuing monetary stake in the animal? ¹²³ Bar Qappara (and the editors of the Yerushalmi) disagree with the Mishnah and forbid heave vetch in all cases of an animal given on appraisal.

“One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.¹²⁷” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure¹²⁸ 26b, is not quite sure about the meaning of the statement..” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.”

footnotes: ¹²⁷ The permission of the Cohen is needed only for burning at the bedside of a Non-Cohen; public buildings can be lit since the utility for some Cohen is assured. ¹²⁸ One may visit the sick at all times, even after dark; therefore, the sick may need light after dark. The Babli, Nedarim

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: So far heave that fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen¹³⁰. Perhaps also from the heave of his own threshing floor¹³¹? He said to him, who could tell you, from the heave of his own threshing floor? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jonah followed Rebbi Jeremiah¹³², Rebbi Yose followed Rebbi Zeïra. He who says, from the heave of his own threshing floor, may he go and light a lamp? ¹³³ Following him who said, heave that fell to him from the house of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, would he not need empowering anyhow¹³⁴? He said to him, when he transfers it to him through a third party¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ This refers to the part of the Mishnah speaking of the father of a Cohen’s wife. The Mishnah presupposes that the Israel is the rightful owner of some impure heave oil. One possibility is that it came to him as an inheritance. ¹³¹ Maybe he is an olive grower and the oil is his from his own oilpress. “Threshing floor”, referring to grain, simply denotes the place and moment the obligation of heave was created. ¹³² That an Israel may use impure heave from his own harvest to the benefit of a Cohen without ever transferring ownership. ¹³³ The Rome ms. has here a lengthy addition: ר׳ בא בר כהן בעא קומי ר׳ יוסי ולמאן דאמר בתרומה שנפלה לו מבית אבי אמו כהן בלא כך שאינו … “Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: According to him who said, heave that fell to him from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, without that would he not …” ¹³⁴ Since he is an Israel and you said that an Israel cannot use his own heave for the benefit of a Cohen, he should not be able to use his inheritance without transferring ownership to his son-in-law. ¹³⁵ He cannot transfer the ownership of his own possessions without actually performing some act of transfer but he may tell a third person to accept disposal rights of this heave for his daughter. Then he can use the oil for her benefit.

It was stated¹³⁷ here, “the business of the Cohen” means anything in which the Cohen has some monetary interest; it only excludes private affairs of the Israel.: “If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor and down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not his own. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts¹³⁸, the latter may light oil to burn for him.” Where is the empowering? He¹³⁹ said to them, when he transfers it to them through a third party.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ A somewhat similar text is in Tosephta 10:9, but there the Israel is the employee of the Cohen and it is clear that what he does in the store is for the benefit of his employer. In the baraita ¹³⁸ The visit of the Cohen is for the benefit of the Israel. In this case, the same problem arises as in the previous case of inherited oil, cf. Notes 131–132. ¹³⁹ R. Zeïra, the author of the preceding paragraph.

It was stated: An Israel woman who came to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel¹⁴⁰ fragment must have stated that she may use left-over oil for some personal use, cf. Tosephta 10:9 and the two following paragraphs.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ This baraita

¹⁴¹ Chapter 4, Notes 39–42. A somewhat similar statement is in Tosephta 10:9. From here to the start of the discussion about weddings, the text is also in Šabbat, Chapter 2, fol. 4c/d. It was stated: “An Israel woman who comes to a priestly woman to get fire dips her wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs; there was no court which disestablished. (As you say there, there was no court which disestablished, so here there was no court which disestablished!)¹⁴², is out of place here. As R. S. Lieberman notes, it seems from the Tosephta that the Israel woman needs the light to go home in the night from the Cohen’s house. This kind of use is generally accepted by popular practice since it is necessary if the Cohen should have any kind of social life.

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ This entire paragraph is taken from Ševi‘it ¹⁴² This sentence, which embodies the essence of the argument in Sevi‘it

“¹⁴⁴ If cattle of a Cohen was fed at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts¹³⁸ and he lit oil to burn for him, even after [the Cohen] left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar¹⁴⁵). His employer, R. Ḥiyya from Sepphoris, is also quoted in ‘Orlah in a discussion with R. Ammi. Therefore, both men belong to the third generation of Galilean Amoraim. It follows from the story that this R. Ḥiyya was a Cohen; he might be identical with R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this happened to me; by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ Tosephta 10:9. ¹³⁸ The visit of the Cohen is for the benefit of the Israel. In this case, the same problem arises as in the previous case of inherited oil, cf. Notes 131–132. ¹⁴⁵ He appears only here (and in the parallel in Šabbat

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s¹⁴⁶? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick¹⁴⁷. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ The question is elliptic, so is the answer. It is not even clear whether R. Immi ruled to permit (R. Eliahu Fulda) or prohibit (R. Moses Margalit). It seems, with R. Eliahu Fulda, that the paragraph refers to the statement in the Mishnah that oil to burn may be used for all sick persons with the consent of the Cohen. The question now is whether from this oil the nurse can light for himself. The answer is that the value of the oil is insignificant. ¹⁴⁷ Dipped in oil for burning given to the sick. ¹⁴⁸ Will not treat it with due respect but will use it in dirty places.

Gamliel the twin asked Rebbi Yasa: May one add profane oil and light¹⁴⁹? He said to him, Rebbi Hoshaia stated only that one is not required to squeeze it out¹⁵⁰/Tosephta quoted above, Note 142, the Israel does not have to extinguish the light when the Cohen leaves, but he is not permitted to start burning oil for burning in the absence of the Cohen. Therefore, Gamliel’s question has to be answered in the negative.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ May one add profane oil to oil for burning and use it to light for a healthy Israel with no connection to any Cohen? ¹⁵⁰ In the baraita

Rebbi Abbahu said, Jonathan ben Akhmai did teach me: The daughter of a Cohen standing Sabbath eve with a light filled with oil for burning, adds some profane oil and lights¹⁵¹ 2:2 states that Sabbath lamps may not be filled with oil for burning. It is now stated that this refers only to lamps filled exclusively with oil for burning, not to a mixture of that with profane oil.. Rebbi Zeïra said, what is the nature of this¹⁵²? He said to him, he was a great personality, well versed in the Mishnah. Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin explained this to Rabbi and he appointed him rabbi¹⁵³ 2..

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Mishnah Šabbat ¹⁵² Can this statement be trusted? Since the Babli does not mention the possibility of adding profane oil, it certainly must disagree. ¹⁵³ R. Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin was a third generation Amora in Galilee. Therefore, “Rabbi” mentioned here cannot be Rebbi; it must be R. Jehudah II Neśia, or possibly R. Joḥanan. The person given the title “rabbi” seems to have been Jonathan ben Akhmai.Here ends the parallel in Šabbat

“One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meїr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it¹⁵⁴. In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose from Sidon asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, does practice not follow Rebbi Simeon¹⁵⁵? He said to him, it is from the preceding paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says similar to these two, Rebbi Yose says similar to those two, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice follows Rebbi Yose¹⁵⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ Since they will not touch it, there is no danger that any oil will be used for other than approved purposes. ¹⁵⁵ This is false, cf. Chapter 3, Note 25. ¹⁵⁶ If the disagreement between RR. Meїr and Simeon is taken as fundamental, practice should follow one of the opinions intermediate between the fundamental opinions. This would lead one to declare that practice must follow R. Yose. Therefore, the decision to follow R. Simeon for a wedding is not trivial.

May one use oil for burning on Hanukkah? They said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One uses oil for burning on Hanukkah. Rebbi Nasa said, I never knew my father. My mother told me, your father said that he who has no profane oil may use oil for burning on Hanukkah¹⁵⁷ 11:18). In the Babli, Šabbat 21a/b, this is a matter of controversy. The Yerushalmi’s position there is represented by R. Zeїra in the name of Rav Mattanah or Rav, the opposite position is taken by Rav Huna..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Even without permission of a Cohen (Maimonides Terumot