MISHNAH: One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs¹ Chapter 5, Note 8); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry). became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap [of grain]². If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other³. Rebbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error⁴⁵ 32a) holds the Mishnah to be a biblical law, applicable only if the impure produce had been pure when it came under the obligation of heave. The Yerushalmi agrees that the prohibition has some biblical basis but it assumes the Mishnah to be applicable without restrictions. {Maimonides translates שוגג by Arabic סאהי “inattentive, absent-minded, distracted”; מזיד by מתעמד “deliberate, premeditated, willful; intentional”.}, his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has ṭevel tithe which he continually uses to give⁴⁶, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he had known of it earlier⁴⁷. He holds that then his action cannot be unintentional, only negligent., even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels⁵⁹ containing at least 40 seah of water. Immersion is a rabbinical prohibition on the Sabbath because it is making an unusable vessel usable, which in the case of visibly unusable vessels would be a biblical prohibition and a deadly sin. on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten⁶⁰. He who plants⁶¹ on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.

footnotes: ¹ Fig cakes are not strings of figs put together when they are completely dry but made of fresh figs formed into cakes and then put out to ferment and dry. The sap of figs is not one of the fluids that make food susceptible to impurity (Demay ² These are much less tightly compressed than figs in a fig cake. ³ Since heave can be given only from produce clearly earmarked, one would have to bring the impure cake close to the pure one so they can be enclosed somewhere together and one is afraid that the impure might touch the pure cake and spread the impurity. ⁴⁵ At the moment of giving heave he did not realize that the lot to be put in order was impure. The Babli (Pesaḥim ⁴⁶ He had tithe of which the heave of the tithe was not given. Since heave of the tithe can be given from one lot on another without restriction, the Levite may use one lot to give heave of the tithe for all other lots, but only after he gave heave for the lot itself. ⁴⁷ That the produce was impure or, if tithe, that it was ṭevel ⁵⁹ Impure vessels that only may be purified by immersion in a miqweh ⁶⁰ Tithing is a rabbinical, cooking a biblical prohibition. In both cases, the cook may not eat of his food until after the end of the Sabbath. ⁶¹ Also a biblical prohibition. The restriction concerning the Sabbatical year is purely rabbinical, enacted because people tended not to observe the Sabbatical while everybody observed the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure⁴, Chapter 2, Note 141) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared., even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible⁵ 13b, s. v. כשם; Giṭṭin 30b, s. v. וכי; Menaḥot 54b, s. v. כך; Bekhorot 59b, s. v. אף).. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself⁶. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure.”.

footnotes: ⁴ For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay ⁵ The verse quoted refers to heaves of the tithe for grain and wine. For these, it is impossible to give Great Heave (Chapter 1, Note 64) from pure for impure since Great Heave is given only from earmarked produce; it is inferred that nowhere may one give heave from pure produce on impure.The statement that abstract principles can be transferred from impossible to possible cases is not found in the Babli but Tosaphot refer to it several times to explain the background of talmudic reasoning (Beẓah ⁶ “From itself” is repeated in Num

Everything teaches for itself and for others⁷, the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself⁸. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest⁹. Cahana said (Num. 18:29): “From its best, the sanctified part from it;” take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce⁶. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure. but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? (Num. 18:28) “From all of your tithes,” one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce¹⁰.

footnotes: ⁷ Every verse of the Torah first is needed for its subject but then can be used to deduce rules for other cases by the standard rules of inference, either following R. Ismael or R. Aqiba. ⁸ While very few verses speak about the obligation of the Great Heave and no details are given, the verses dealing with the heave of the tithe are many and partially contradictory. As explained in the paragraph, the general expressions are taken to refer to the Great Heave and the detailed instructions for the heave of the tithe. ⁹ Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity. ⁶ “From itself” is repeated in Num ¹⁰ Chapter 1, Note 206.

Heave of the tithe is taken from pure produce for pure, from impure for impure, from pure for impure, but not from impure for pure⁹. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, just as it may not be taken from impure for pure, so it may not be taken from impure for impure. Rebbi Neḥemiah agrees in the case of demay¹¹ 115b, Tosephta 3:19) this is formulated as: “R. Neḥemiah says, one gives from impure produce for impure only in the case of demay,” since then the obligation is not clear-cut.. That is, if he has from the same kind¹². If he does not have anything from the same kind, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya went with Rebbi Zeïra to Ḥammat Gader. He bought him a roll¹³ Chap. 6, Note 103. and wanted to put it in order from one day to the next¹⁴ which has to be given for bread from an uncertified baker (Demay Halakhah 5:1). Since the roll was for next morning’s breakfast, R. Ḥanina was wondering whether R. Neḥemiah would permit giving heave now since a roll handled by the unobservant certainly was impure, having been prepared for impurity by the water needed to make the dough.. He said to him: We do not have to worry about a single opinion! Can you say that he had from the same kind¹⁵ if some pure food of the same kind is in his possession. However, the question remains open since the only pure roll R. Ḥanania could possibly have bought the next day would have to be one made with fruit juice (Demay Halakhah 5:1, Note 8) and it is most unlikely that such rolls would be available commercially.?

footnotes: ⁹ Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity. ¹¹ In Babylonian sources (Baba Qama ¹² The consensus of the commentators is that this refers to R. Neḥemiah’s prohibition of giving heave of the tithe from impure for impure food. ¹³ Greek, cf. Berakhot ¹⁴ Since it was baked, one can be sure that the Great Heave had been given. The question is only about the heave of the tithe of demay ¹⁵ Since R. Ḥanina is told not to worry, this implies that R. Neḥemiah forbids giving heave of the tithe of impure demay

“In truth;¹⁶ Chapter 2, cf. Note 36.” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Quote from the Mishnah. This statement is also in Kilaim

“If a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part;” but if part of it becomes impure is not all of it impure¹⁷? The Mishnah deals with the case that they are connected only by fruit juice¹ Chapter 5, Note 8); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry).. But will it not be cut into two parts in the end¹⁸? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Since figs usually are washed before drying, they are susceptible for impurity and the water will connect all parts of the cake. ¹ Fig cakes are not strings of figs put together when they are completely dry but made of fresh figs formed into cakes and then put out to ferment and dry. The sap of figs is not one of the fluids that make food susceptible to impurity (Demay ¹⁸ Since nobody swallows an entire fig cake whole, could not the cake be put in order once a pure part was cut off? The answer is that this is preferred but one cannot take it for granted.

“And similarly for a bunch of vegetable.” The Mishnah deals with the case that it became impure as a bunch but when the single stalks were impure and he bound them together, this does not apply¹⁹. But will it not be split and made into two parts in the end¹⁸? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected. What is the situation if a bundle became impure, he unbound it²⁰ and bound it again?

footnotes: ¹⁹ Since unbound it would be giving pure heave for the impure, a later bunching cannot change the situation. ¹⁸ Since nobody swallows an entire fig cake whole, could not the cake be put in order once a pure part was cut off? The answer is that this is preferred but one cannot take it for granted. ²⁰ In that stage, it would be giving from impure for impure. The question is not answered.

Should we have stated only fig cake and neither bunch nor heap? If we had stated about fig cake and not bunch we would have said he may give heave for the fig cake which is all one body but not for the bunch which is not one body. So it is necessary to state also “bunch”. If we had stated bunch not heap, we would have said he may give heave for the bunch because it is all held together but not for the heap which is not held together in one piece. So it is necessary to state fig-cake, necessary to state bunch, and necessary to state heap.

Since we stated: “If there were two fig-cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain⁴, Chapter 2, Note 141) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared.,” etc.²¹? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons²² Chapter 1, Note 38. or squash²³.

footnotes: ⁴ For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay ²¹ Either this part of the Mishnah or the statement of R. Joḥanan is superfluous. ²² Cf. Kilaim ²³ Since these are large individual fruits, the argument of R. Joḥanan is not applicable; neither does R. Joḥanan’s statement follow from the Mishnah.

If there were two fig cakes, one partially impure and one partially pure¹ Chapter 5, Note 8); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry)., may one give heave from one for the other²⁵? If he had two heaps²⁶, and from both of them he had given part of heaves and tithes²⁷, may he give heave from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.²⁸” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave from one for the other.

footnotes: ¹ Fig cakes are not strings of figs put together when they are completely dry but made of fresh figs formed into cakes and then put out to ferment and dry. The sap of figs is not one of the fluids that make food susceptible to impurity (Demay ²⁵ Since the Mishnah permits taking pure heave also for the impure parts of the same fig cake, may one put both cakes together on a table where they are earmarked and give one heave for both of them? ²⁶ כרי is a heap of freshly threshed grain, ערימה one of totally dry grain. ²⁷ Mishnah 4:1 states that if only partial heave and tithes were taken from a heap they would have no status as heave and tithes but, even though they would now be separated from the heap, they would still count as one for giving heave from an earmarked heap. May one give one heave for both in this case? The two cases are treated as similar. ²⁸ The answer, “no”, is too simple and a thinking person should not have to ask.

²⁹ for the textual variants.“If somebody brought many kinds in a box, cabbage on top and cabbage on the bottom but something else in between, he may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.” That means, if there is no empty space. But if there is empty space he may give heave or tithe from one for the other³⁰. ³¹“The entire house of the wine press is one³².” The entire threshing house is one. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, only if the main threshing place is in the middle. So far this is for wheat; [it is] the same even for stubbles, even for straw.

footnotes: ²⁹ Tosephta 3:8, cf. Tosephta ki-fshutah ³⁰ If the entire box is filled up, the two layers of cabbage are not earmarked together. But if there is free space where the walls of the box hold together just the two layers of cabbage, they are earmarked and can be tithed together. ³¹ Tosephta 3:7, in the name of R. Yose. ³² All wine barrels in the house of the wine press are earmarked together.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Was impure [produce] between them? He said to him, is that biting³³ Chapter 9, Note 172, Mishnah Ḥallah 2:4.? The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: If there was a blanket between them? He said to them, that is the case of the five sacks, as it was stated: “Five sacks on the threshing floor, one does not give heave and tithes from one for the other.³⁴ 3:11, the text reads: “One gives heave and tithes from one for the other.” While the reading of the Tosephta does not prove anything for the Yerushalmi, the text in Ma‘aser Šeni indicates that the text here is corrupt. Maimonides (Terumot 3:18) and Roš (Hilkhot Ḥallah 4) follow the text in Ma‘aser Šeni.”

footnotes: ³³ If three layers are in the box but the middle layer is impure, bottom and top are not prepared for impurity, and there is no empty space, then top and bottom do not go together because they do not physically touch. For the notion of “biting”, cf. Kilaim ³⁴ This text contradicts the previous statement that the entire enclosed area of the threshing floor is earmarking for heave. In the parallel text in Tosephta 3:10 and Yerushalmi Ma‘aser Šeni

It was stated³⁵ 2:8 (fol. 58d) the entire paragraph.: “Rebbi Illaï³⁶ says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure³⁷. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg³⁸, fills it with eggs³⁹, “olives”. This reading is required since eggs are not subject to heave. Also, the width of an egg is only an upper bound on the diameter of the funnel; since all olives touching the impure olives or their brine will become impure, one certainly is interested in minimizing the number of impure olives generated. In addition, unless the diameter of the funnel is less than the width of an olive, the pure olives filled into the funnel must be completely dry, otherwise they all become impure. and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked⁴⁰.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces⁴¹? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “³⁵ 2:8 (fol. 58d) the entire paragraph. They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil⁴².” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit⁴³. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure³⁷? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches⁴⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

footnotes: ³⁵ Tosephta 3:18; in Ḥallah ³⁶ The father of Rebbi Jehudah, one of the few known students of R. Eliezer. ³⁷ A fluid becomes impure in its entirety if any drop of it becomes impure. ³⁸ An opening smaller than the diameter of an egg lets impurity enter but not leave. Hence, anything in the funnel may become impure but it cannot transmit impurity to the food in the barrel. ³⁹ In the Tosephta and in Ḥallah ⁴⁰ The amphora and the funnel touching it form a well-defined domain in space. ⁴¹ Cf. Note 1. Since the lowest layer of olives becomes impure, only it and the layer directly above will be impure; all others will be pure and usable for heave. ³⁵ Tosephta 3:18; in Ḥallah ⁴² The position of R. Eliezer may be accepted but the interpretation given it by R. Illaï is certainly wrong. One has to consider fluids, not wet solid food. ⁴³ For mechanical pressing, grapes or olives are put into a vat and are covered by a circular cover. On top of it is a beam which is depressed either manually or by a viselike device. If two adjacent vats are pressed simultaneously, this certainly is considered earmarked. The beam itself, wood without cavities, cannot become impure. ³⁷ A fluid becomes impure in its entirety if any drop of it becomes impure. ⁴⁴ Two beams for one vat are impractical; that case has to be thrown out. R. Eliezer permits giving heave from pure for impure if the vintner (or olive grower) originally had the intention of processing his entire harvest in one press. Then they become one batch. If later he decides to process in two different presses and it turns out that one is pure, the other impure, he may give heave for his entire harvest from the pure lot.

There⁴⁸ 4:6., we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage⁴⁹ in breakage and profane in spillage, never heave, and does not make the remaining wine dema‘ (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 175, Chapter 4, Note 25; Terumot Chapter 5). Dema‘ wine is almost worthless. but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom⁵⁰ Chapter 6, Note 136.. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel⁵¹ invalidates heave but not ṭevel and certainly not profane wine. Therefore, a ṭevul yom may work in a winery producing pure wine and R. Simeon is right when he assumes that a reservation concerning the touch of a ṭevul yom is in the mind of the person taking heave, even if this is not consciously expressed. Cf. also Ḥallah 3:2, Note 43..

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Mishnah Ṭevul Yom ⁴⁹ If the amphora containing the heave wine breaks or some of its contents are spilled before the amphora is safely removed from the cistern, the wine that flows back into the cistern is ṭevel ⁵⁰ A person freed from impurity by immersion in water who will become pure at sundown. His touch does not make impure but it invalidates heave and sacrifices, cf. Demay ⁵¹ The touch of a ṭevul yom

It was stated⁵² 2:16–17, formulated as anonymous statement. {In the Rome ms., the name of the tradent is R. Yose. This reading is proven false in the next paragraph.} The Tosephta cannot represent the Yerushalmi tradition since for תרומה גדולה it has תרומת ראשית “beginning heave”, a reference to Num. 18:12.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, about what was this said? About Great Heave which must be given from what is earmarked. But for the heave of the tithe, everything is supposed to be whole. If he gave Great Heave and heave of the tithe together, it is not whole.” Jehudah ben Rebbi said, he certainly did not want to overstep the words of the Torah in giving heave of the tithe before the Great Heave⁵³. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Did we not state that “one may not give heave from impure produce for pure”? Think about it, when he did it and said, I did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah⁵⁴! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if you say so, you let him flee from a minor sin to a major one! Ṭevel is a deadly sin, but an impure person who ate pure food oversteps a positive commandment⁵⁵ prohibition. It must read: “a pure person who ate impure food”, cf. Num. 18:11: “Every pure person in your house shall eat it,” viz., pure heave. The details are given in Bikkurim 2:1; there the text is as corrected here..

footnotes: ⁵² Tosephta Ṭevul Yom ⁵³ He explains why heave of the tithe is under the rules of Great Heave in case both are taken together. If Great Heave were invalidated but not heave of the tithe, it would turn out retroactively that heave of the tithe was given before the Great Heave, which not only is forbidden but also is very difficult to rectify. Therefore, we assume that he did not want any complications and, if made aware of this problem, would himself want to nullify the entire transaction. ⁵⁴ Since one may not give impure heave for pure produce, why do we not stipulate that if the person giving in error would be made aware of what he did, he automatically would want to nullify the transaction. The answer is that in this case, the remedy would be worse than the problem. ⁵⁵ This is the text in both mss. but it is impossible since the impure Cohen who eats heave transgresses a karet

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If somebody gave heave from impure for pure produce, whether it was in error or intentionally, what he did is done⁵⁶.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Assi: There⁵⁷, it is when he thought that it was pure when he had known that it was impure, but he was of the opinion that one may give heave from impure for pure produce? He said to him, that is so, Rebbi⁵⁸ holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Yose it would not make any difference.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Tosephta 3:19. ⁵⁷ He asks about the statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah that previous knowledge invalidates later acts of absentmindedness. It is agreed that this holds if he forgets facts; what if he is in error about the law? One must assume that sometime in the past, he had been informed of the correct practice. ⁵⁸ The editor of the anonymous Mishnah.

⁶² 2:7, this paragraph also in Beẓah 2:1. Our Mishnah is about large vessels, but with small vessels one may use a ruse and immerse them, as Rebbi Hoshaia had stated⁶³ 16:12, Beẓah2:9; a similar baraita quoted in Babli Beẓah 18a. The Tosephta makes the procedure explicit: “Vessels impure in original impurity may not be immersed on a holiday, and certainly not on the Sabbath. But one may fill a cup, or a pail, or a bucket in order to drink at the same time one thinks about it” [that it should be a valid immersion.] Impurity can be removed only by conscious immersion.: “A person may fill an impure vessel from the cistern as a ruse and immerse it.” Also, we have stated: “If his pail or garment fell into the cistern, one may use this as a ruse and immerse them⁶⁴.” Two Amoraïm, one says [one may use a ruse] for vessels impure in original impurity; but the other one says [only] for vessels impure in derivative impurity⁶⁵ Chapter 2, Note 137. The language of the Tosephta shows that it was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. The one who said in derivative impurity objected to the one who said in original impurity: Even on weekdays, would it not need sundown⁶⁶. As stated in Note 51, immersion purifies immediately for all profane food and purposes.? He said to him, if he wants to use them in purity for profane food.

footnotes: ⁶² This paragraph and the next are also in Šabbat ⁶³ Tosephta Šabbat ⁶⁴ At the moment he goes to pull the things out of the cistern, he may intend to have the immersion count for removal of impurity even though the immersion itself was accidental. ⁶⁵ For original and derivative impurity, cf Demay ⁶⁶ The vessels are Ṭevulê Yom

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman washes a cup here, a bowl there, a dish there; it turns out that her entire house was wetted on the Sabbath⁶⁷ 15:3 (fol. 15b). The house has a dirt floor, and periodic wetting is needed to keep the air dust free. The Babli (Šabbat95a) notes that this trick is superfluous in Babylonian practice. The Babli follows R. Simeon for whom any work is permitted on the Sabbath if its intention is legitimate and permitted, even if some side effect would constitute a forbidden action if done by itself, unless the forbidden action is unavoidable. In our case, wetting the floor to strengthen the ground and the adobe house would be an action derivative of building and forbidden. But wetting the floor lightly to avoid dust is a legitimate action and, since in this case the water will evaporate quickly and any building effect would be temporary, it will be permitted outright. It follows that the Yerushalmi rejects the point of view of Rebbi Simeon..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ The parallel is in Šabbat

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden⁶⁸. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden⁶⁹. It was stated⁷⁰ 2:15; Babli Ketubot 34a, and partially in Šabbat38a, Beẓah 17a, Baba Qama 71a, Ḥulin15a, Giṭṭin 52b. From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Šabbat 3:1, fol. 5d.: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian⁷¹ already then meant “Alexander’s”. said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr⁷² 15a, Rav is reported to publicly proclaiming R. Jehudah’s rule., in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana⁷³ said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated⁷⁴ 2:16.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering⁷⁵, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due⁷⁶; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state⁷⁷ 2:14. The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph.: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ The two parts must be parallel, the difference between “intentional” and “unintentional” can be only in the mind of the agent. There are two possibilities, either that he forgot that it was Sabbath or that he was unaware that cooking is forbidden on the Sabbath. ⁶⁹ Since intentionally he must have known that it was Sabbath, the unintentional case must be the same. ⁷⁰ Tosephta Šabbat ⁷¹ A student of R. Aqiba, Tanna of the fourth generation. It seems that the name Sandlar ⁷² Rav stated the exact rules to his students as theory. But in public he followed more restrictive rules. In Babli Ḥulin ⁷³ A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Aḥa. His appearance as reporting Rav’s direct instructions to his students seems anachronistic. ⁷⁴ Tosephta Šabbat ⁷⁵ Cooking on the Sabbath. ⁷⁶ Tithing on the Sabbath. ⁷⁷ The first sentence here, without the introductory “in earlier times they said”, is the first sentence of Tosephta Šabbat

“⁷⁷ 2:14. The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph. They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden, deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish better the more it shrinks? Cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of turnips and leeks as dishes better the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found eggs and forbade them, hot water and permitted it⁷⁸. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like ḥizrar apples⁷⁹ 4:1. The eggs must have been boiled a very long time to shrink to this small size. The statement might disagree with the Babli which reports that Samuel used eggs dipped alternatingly into boiling and cold water 1000 times as a diagnostic device for ulcers and intestinal bleeding since they were so hard that they were not digested and could be examined after evacuation but were small enough to be swallowed whole (Nedarim 50b). and they tasted delicious like sweet bread⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ The first sentence here, without the introductory “in earlier times they said”, is the first sentence of Tosephta Šabbat ⁷⁸ In the Tosephta, R. Jehudah permits hot water to stay on an open fire only if it came to a boil before the Sabbath. ⁷⁹ Cf. Mishnah Kilaim ⁸⁰ Probably Greek πάγκρεας, -ατος, τό “sweet bread, pancreas” (E. G.).

It was stated⁸² 3:1. ‘Assasiot are an undetermined kind of legumes (in the words of the Gaonim: they exist in the Land of Israel but not in Babylonia) which need very long cooking to become edible, similar to lupines. Compare Arabic عصّ “to harden”.: “A woman should not fill a pot with ‘assasiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rebbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct, did not Rebbi Yose say, “⁸³ 2:21. Both reasons are given in the Tosephta as basis of the decision of the anonymous majority but R. Jehudah’s statement is left without explanation. The baraita in the Babli (Giṭṭin 53b) gives no reasons at all. He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the other way around. In the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out, on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional because the profit of the Sabbath [is forbidden] to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis⁸⁴? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths⁸⁵ and must be redeemed in the fourth year, everybody will realize that the tree was illegally planted in the Sabbatical.. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is counted⁸⁶ is the Sabbatical, the 30 days are not counted; cf. Ševi‘it 2:6, Mishnah and Note 45.. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; can it be explained for counting⁸⁷? But you have to say because of suspicion; they fined for the unintentional because of the intentional⁸⁸ 3:7. The text of the last clause in Šabbat is longer but the formulation here seems to be the original one..

footnotes: ⁸² Tosephta Šabbat ⁸³ Tosephta Šabbat ⁸⁴ The anonymous opinion in the Tosephta. ⁸⁵ Since the fruits of trees are forbidden the first three years as ‘orlah ⁸⁶ The first year of ‘orlah ⁸⁷ Since the first year counted is the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, nobody will notice that the tree was planted in the last month of the Sabbatical. ⁸⁸ A reason usually attributed to R. Meïr, cf. Orlah

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from one species for another species; if he gave, his heave is no heave. All kinds of wheat are one. All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other. At a place where there is a Cohen one gives from the best, but where there is no Cohen he gives from what is durable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one always gives from the best. One gives a small whole onion¹¹⁰ as heave but not half a large onion. Rebbi Jehudah says it is not so, one rather gives half a large onion. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said one gives onions of town people as heave for rural ones but not rural ones for those of town people because they are city-dwellers’¹¹¹ food.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ The anonymous Tanna considers large onions better than small ones and whole onions more durable than divided ones. ¹¹¹ Greek πολιτικός (adj.), “fit for, belonging to the city”. Onions sold in the city are of uniform quality while rural onions are those that cannot be sold in the city.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah. (Num. 18:12): “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain⁸⁹.” Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ This is the description of heave; the description as “best” is the basis of the position of R. Jehudah. In the verse, olive oil is treated separately from cider and grain. Everybody agrees that heave of olive oil must be kept separate from that of cider and grain. The argument, known as בנין אב מכתוב אחד, is that if two different species of trees are treated as distinct then two species belonging to completely different families of plants certainly must be treated as distinct.

“All kinds of wheat are one.” It is needed [since it applies] even from white wheat on brown wheat and vice-versa⁹⁰ Chapter 2, Notes 85–86..

footnotes: ⁹⁰ For the determination of these kinds, cf. Peah

“All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other.” It was stated⁹¹ 54b.: “One gives as heave fresh figs for dried figs; dried figs go by count⁹². Dried figs for fresh figs by volume⁹³, but fresh figs for dry figs do not go by volume, nor dry figs for fresh figs by count. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, baskets of fresh and dried figs are all one kind and one gives heave and tithes from one for the other⁹⁴. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose⁹⁵ said, my father used to take ten dried figs from the drying place for ninety fresh figs in the container⁹⁶.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, you consider the shriveled ones as if they had swelled and you take the baskets as they are⁹⁷. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say that swollen shrinks but shrunk does not swell; one would have to take large baskets for fresh figs.⁹⁸., taking fresh figs for dried ones. Since R. Simeon declares taking heave permissible both ways, he must disagree with the anonymous Tanna. In the next paragraph, R. Yose argues similarly that cereal in water only expands but never shrinks.. Rebbi Aḥa said to them, that is what your teacher Rebbi Ilai thought about it.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Tosephta 4:1–3, but there “count” and “volume” are switched. This Tosephta and the one quoted in the next paragraph are discussed in Babli Menaḥot ⁹² Since figs shrink considerably in drying, if one would tithe fresh figs for dried figs by volume, he would give much too little since the number of fresh figs would be too small. The heave discussed here must be heave of the tithe since the Great Heave is given by estimate and exact measurements are frowned upon in that case. ⁹³ This rule must follow Abba Eleazar ben Gamla (Chapter 1, Note 90). ⁹⁴ Rabban Simeon disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and allows fresh figs to be given by volume for dried figs and dry figs by count for fresh ones. {There is no evidence that Rabban Simeon speaks about places where there is no Cohen to whom to give heave and he allows both fresh figs, the best, or dried figs, the durable ones, to be given, as asserted by R. S. Lieberman.} ⁹⁵ The same name is given in the Tosephta; in the Babli it is R. Eleazar ben R. Yose, the second prominent son of R. Yose. ⁹⁶ He disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and requires counting if dry figs are given for fresh ones; he disagrees with Abba Eleazar ben Gamla. ⁹⁷ Rabban Simeon does not necessarily disagree with the anonymous Tanna; if one takes a dried fig as stand-in for the fresh fig it once was, one may take a small volume of dried figs as equivalent of a large volume of fresh figs. ⁹⁸ The argument of R. Jeremiah works only one way, viz

There¹⁰⁰ 3:4. The discussion is about the second part of the Mishnah, not quoted in the text: “If they were put into the rain and swelled they are impure …” The volumes indicated are the minima that may carry impurity or make their consumption a criminal offense., we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass¹⁰¹. 11:24–25., or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing¹⁰². 11:31–32., the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice]¹⁰³. 19:7; overdue is sacrifice left after the allotted time has expired (one night, day and night, or two days and the night in between, as the case may be; Lev. 7:17.), or of fat¹⁰⁴. 7:22–26., are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive¹⁰⁵; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There¹⁰⁶ 5:1: “All flour sacrifices are brought unleavened except the breads for a thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:13) and the Two Breads [for Pentecost (Lev. 23:17)] which are leavened. Rebbi Meïr says, the sour dough is made from the dedicated flour. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is not of the best but he brings sour dough, puts it into the measuring vessel and fills the latter [with flour.] They said to him,that will make it deficient or redundant.” The problem is that in each case, the amount of flour necessary is prescribed by biblical law. According to R. Meïr, one takes the exact amount, and then takes from this a small amount which is moistened to make it sour; then the sour dough is returned to the original flour which is moistened and kneaded. R. Jehudah notes that this will make poor bread; he prefers real sour dough to be used in addition to the flour of the offering. He is told that in this case, when the finished product must have specified size, his procedure probably will never be exactly right., we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks¹⁰⁷; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant¹⁰⁸. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order¹⁰⁹.. The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Mishnah Ṭahorot ¹⁰¹ Lev ¹⁰² Lev ¹⁰³ Rejected sacrifice is sacrifice made with the wrong intentions, Lev ¹⁰⁴ The fat in lumps in the body, Lev ¹⁰⁵ In matters of impurity and dietary laws, it is not the actual volume that counts but the volume at the time the impurity or prohibition first arose. If impurity or prohibition are impossible in the original state, they cannot be acquired by subsequent swelling. Rebbi Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish hold that only the actual volume at the moment matters. Everybody agrees that his guidelines carry over to the determination of heave of the tithe. ¹⁰⁶ Mishnah Menaḥot ¹⁰⁷ It does not actually shrink but will not rise. Since the measure was not full to start out with, in order to accomodate the rising dough, one now will have invalidated the offering because it is too small. ¹⁰⁸ This text, confirmed by the mss., is impossible since the Southerners disagree with Rebbis Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish precisely in the case of swelling food. In must read: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbis Joḥanan, and Simeon ben Laqish all three say the same. The next sentence must then read: The Southerners, Rebbi Jonah and Yose all three say the same. The first group takes all food as is, the others agree only on shrinking, not on expanding food. The statements of Rebbis Jeremiah, Jonah, and Yose are in the preceding paragraph and deal with heave of the tithe. ¹⁰⁹ To tithe or at least give heave of the tithe by the rules of demay

MISHNAH: Also, one may give oil olives as heave for pickling olives but not pickling olives for oil olives, uncooked wine for cooked wine but not cooked wine for uncooked wine¹¹². This is the rule: All that is kilaim with another kind, one may not give as heave one for the other, not even good for bad. But all that is not kilaim with another kind, one may give the good as heave for the bad but not the bad for the good; if he gave bad for good, his heave is heave except for zĕwānîn¹¹³ Chapter 1, Note 1. for wheat because they are not food. Green melons and sweet melons¹¹⁴ Chapter 1, Notes 38,39. As noted in the Halakhah, the last statement is redundant. are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.

footnotes: ¹¹² Olives chosen for pickling are those with too little oil for pressing. Cooked wine has lost its alcohol but became sweet. ¹¹³ Kilaim ¹¹⁴ Kilaim

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it¹¹⁶.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning¹¹⁷, vol. 1, #24; Responsa ascribed to Naḥmanides, #190) explains that R. Joḥanan insists that Mishnah 11:1 must read: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; the Sages permit since he improves it.” This is difficult to accept since the Yerushalmi elsewhere (e. g., Ševi‘it Chapter 8, Note 35) accepts Mishnah 11:1 in its original form. Therefore, it seems that R. Joḥanan sees a real inconsistency in the positions of R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners¹¹⁸. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. 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 drinkers¹¹⁹. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked¹²⁰ is not recorded elsewhere; in the Tosephta (4:4) Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits cooked to be given for uncooked but only as second choice. R. Joḥanan declares the baraita invalid..” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Mishnah 11:1: “One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” Since R. Jehudah is not recorded as protesting the rule that cooked wine may not be given for uncooked, it follows that the first part of the Mishnah must be acceptable to R. Jehudah. In slightly shortened form, this paragraph is also in Halakhah 11:1. ¹¹⁷ R. Salomo ben Adrat (Responsa ¹¹⁸ The Cohen may drink his heave wine in any way he wishes. R. Joḥanan rejects the distinction made by R. Eleazar; Mishnah 11:1 also applies to the vintner and we have to find out why R. Jehudah does not allow him to cook the wine. ¹¹⁹ Since cooked wine is not to everybody’s taste, the vintner might have difficulty in finding a Cohen willing to drink his heave and the heave might have to be destroyed. There is no problem for R. Eleazar since according to him, the Cohen cooks his own drink. ¹²⁰ This baraita

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry sin because of it.” Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid¹²² 143b..

footnotes: ¹²² The verse declares irregularities in giving heaves as sinful. If irregularly given heave were invalid, it would not be considered given and its giver could not incur sin. This argument is also accepted in Babli Baba Batra

Hence, something that is food is permitted¹²³ are unacceptable since they are not human food..

footnotes: ¹²³ This refers to the Mishnah, that zewanin

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated¹²⁴ 1:1, Note 21.: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine for vinegar but not from vinegar for wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one for the other.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it seems that Rebbi would agree as to biblical law¹²⁵. What is Rebbi’s reason? If you say so, that one may give heave of wine for vinegar, he will think that one is permitted to give vinegar for wine.

footnotes: ¹²⁴ The statement of R. Ismael ben R. Yose is in Tosephta 4:6; the statement is quoted in Kilaim ¹²⁵ That one may give heave from good wine for bad vinegar. He forbids it because giving from vinegar for wine is sinful.

“Green melons and sweet melons¹¹⁴ Chapter 1, Notes 38,39. As noted in the Halakhah, the last statement is redundant. are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.” Rebbi Jehudah keeps to his opinion, the rabbis keep to their opinion, as we have stated (Mishnah Kilaim 1:2): “Green melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Kilaim