MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free (Halakhah 4:1), this holds only for produce already harvested. . If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated. . Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor. Onions which developed roots in storage became pure and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field, and the Sabbatical year. .
HALAKHAH: “If somebody lifts out plants from his own property”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s. As we have stated there 1:6; Notes 275–276. , “He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is the opinion of everybody. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the matter of young plants. What is the difference between wheat and young plants? For wheat, it was the end of processing; for plants it is not the end of processing. Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages in the matter of turnips and radishes because they spoil. Does wheat not also spoil? Wheat admits another threshing floor, these have no other threshing floor.
“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel .” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow 1:3, Note 130 . , he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.
There is no difference, whether for sowing seeds, to abandon property, or [to plant] outside the Land. There 1:6, Note 275 . The main objection is from the next clause in the Mishnah: “If he takes seeds from the threshing floor he is free from tithes until he smoothes.” , we have stated: “Forever he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” And here you say so? There, he abandons everything, here he abandons only the future growth. But did we not state “outside the Land?” There is a difference, outside the Land both for the stem and future growth; is here not a difference between the stem and future growth?
According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said 4:1, Note 10 . , ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything will not disappear, replanting will never free the current crop and no tithing now should be necessary, in obvious disagreement with the Mishnah! . Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah but for ṭevel which has this status by their word everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state 3:7 : “Similarly, olives for pressing {harvested by the owner by shaking the tree} which were mixed with picked olives {gleaned by the poor and exempt from tithes}, harvest grapes {subject to tithes} which were mixed with grapes of gleanings {of the poor and exempt from tithes}, if he can provide for {the obligated} from another place, he should do so; otherwise, he takes heave and Heave of the Tithe for everything but the tithes only in proportion.” : “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words? Rebbi Mana said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing which was mixed with oil from picked olives.
Rebbi Mana said, they taught only “for seeds”; therefore, for eating he is free. Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; he is obligated for seeds or for consumption because this is their threshing floor. Rebbi Ḥanina said, because he would transfer it from second to the poor or from the poor to second.
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state 1:9, Notes 161–162 ; speaking of harvested vegetables stored in a pit and covered with loose earth. : “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim , or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden 1:9, Note 166 , that the Mishnah is accepted only for vegetables which did not grow new roots after being harvested. Therefore, the Mishnah there contradicts R. Joḥanan’s statement here. because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand it would be fine.
“If they grew roots in a box they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they did not lose their impurity. If they grew roots in storage they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they lost their impurity.” They are in their previous state and you say they lost? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: The Torah emphasized the purity of growing plants ( Lev . 11:37 ): “If from their carcass anything fell on any sown seed which may be sown, it is pure.”
In addition, it was stated: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit? before the compilers of the Yerushalmi. A baraita which reads: “It is forbidden to take out from them on the Sabbath, and if he did he is permitted,” is inconsistent. Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty.
MISHNAH: A person should not sell his produce after it reached the period of tithing to anybody not trustworthy in matters of tithe, or in the Sabbatical year to anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical. If some were ripened early he takes the early ripe fruit and sells the remainder. A person should not sell his chaff or his oil cakes or his grape husks to somebody not trustworthy in matters of tithe if the latter wants to extract fluids from it. If he extracted, he is obligated for tithes but free from heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff. If somebody bought a vegetable field in Syria 7:6, Note 119 . Produce of Syria is exempt from tithes unless it grew on the property of a Jew, Demay 6:11, Note 172 . before it reached the time of tithes he is obligated, after it reached the time of tithes he is free and he can harvest continuously. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may even hire workers and harvest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, where has this been said? When he bought the field. But if he did not buy the field he is free even after it reached the time of tithes. Rebbi said, all according to computation.
HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: A person should not sell his field6. Rebbi Simeon permits since he may say to him, I sold mine, go and demand what is yours. If he transgressed and sold, he tithes what he eats but he does not have to tithe for what he sold since we are not responsible for the dishonest 3:5, Note 134 . .
It was stated: He should not give heave. If he transgressed and gave heave, Rebbi Berekhia said, he is empowered. Rebbi Mana said, he is not empowered; that heave he gave creates ṭevel for tithe.
Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: If he gave heave one in sixty, which is one in sixty-one including broken grain 4:3. , what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff? Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.” Is that not needed only for the excess?
It was stated 4:5, Notes 90–92 . : If a field Chapter 1, Note 78 , Ševi‘it Chapter 2, Notes 63,77. became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. It was stated (9 ). There, the name is R. Jonathan ben Joseph, a Tanna of the fourth generation who also is quoted as R. Natan ben Joseph. : Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says ( Lev . 25:3 ): “You shall gather its yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah 4(5 ); Babli Pesaḥim 51b . , so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall, cf. Peah 4:6, Note 86 . . If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, abandonment, dedication, and Syria are in dispute between Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages about budding 5:1, Note 6 . and growing roots 2:7. . If somebody sowed a dry spot, it grew one-third ripe, and he made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is obligated. 14:22 . Whether there is a rabbinic obligation to tithe produce grown in a house is a matter of dispute between Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David ( Ma‘serot 1:10). The position of Maimonides, that the discussion here is only about the biblical obligations, not the rabbinic ones, is supported by the next paragraph, cf. Note 83 . ; according to the Sages any later growth is free. If he sowed in a house, removed the roof, and then made a roof over it: according to Rebbi Aqiba any later growth is free; according to the Sages any later growth is obligated.
Is there a dispute between Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages even for ḥallah is the heave from dough. The problem is Mishnah Ḥallah 2:1 : “Produce from outside the Land imported into the Land is subject to ḥallah . Produce exported from here to there, R. Eliezer makes it obligated, R. Aqiba frees it.” The problem is the interpretation of Num . 15:18–19 : “Speak to the sons of Israel and tell them: When you come to the Land into which I am bringing you , when you will eat from the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave to the Eternal.” There is a clear biblical obligation if both conditions are satisfied. There is a rabbinic obligation to give ḥallah from any dough anywhere. If only one of the two conditions is satisfied, is the obligation biblical or rabbinical? ? What do you want from Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, produce from outside the Land which was imported into the Land is obligated for ḥallah ? If Rebbi Aqiba would hold like Rebbi Eliezer, your question would be correct.
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: He sowed in a flower pot without a hole and made a hole? He said to him, now it has a hole 5:10, Halakhah Kilaim 7:8. A flower pot without a hole is not subject to the laws governing agriculture in the Land. Since practice follows the Sages, only the status at the time of harvest counts even if the produce grown in the pot is grain. .
Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel goes with the argument of his ancestor Rabban Gamliel. As we stated there 4:7 . For Rabban Gamliel, produce grown on the Gentile’s property is Gentile produce. : “Jews who were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria, Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel frees.”
Rebbi said, all according to computation; this refers to the first part [of the Mishnah].
MISHNAH: He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated. If he found more than his measure he gives proportionally from another place. The holes of ants which were near an obligated heap overnight are obligated since it is obvious that they were dragging from what was processed all night. Baalbek garlic, Rikhpa onion, Cilician grits, and Egyptian lentils, Rebbi Meïr says also colocasia, Rebbi Yose says also qrṭnym 18:2) for Hebrew קטניות “legumes”. Maimonides describes the fruit as “a kind of pea”. According to Arukh , it is called in Arabic צג̇יר אלאד̇נאב “small of tail”; I. Löw identifies as nelumbo nucifera . are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. The seed of the upper part of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of onions, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. 25:7 ). and these may be eaten if their father was heave 9:4) applies only to food. Therefore, the growth from inedible seeds from heave of vegetables is profane since it is not growth from heave. .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented 25b/26a , this is the opinion of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. R. Eleazar is reported to hold that the anonymous Sages and R. Jehudah disagree about all kinds of after-wine but that tithing from a different batch is possible only for fermented wine since otherwise the tithe might be invalid, being from one kind for another. . There 1:7 . , we have stated: “After-wine before it fermented cannot be bought with money of [Second] Tithe. 14:26 ) “You may spend the money for all your heart’s desire , cattle, sheep, wine, or liquor, or anything you want , eat it there and be merry you and your house.” This has the structure of two general statements divided by a detailed list. Both for R. Ismael and for R. Aqiba, the general statements have to be interpreted in the light of the list; the money may only be spent on food. This excludes water and salt which are not food. Cf. Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4, Notes 144–151. or make a miqweh invalid 10, Note 139 . ; after it fermented it may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe and does not make a miqweh invalid.” That Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s since we stated: “He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe 27a , this is the opinion of both R. Eleazar and R. Yose ben Ḥanina; in the Yerushalmi, Eruvin 3:1, fol. 20d, this is the opinion of R. Eleazar alone. The Yerushalmi there disagrees with the argument here since R. Aḥa qualifies the statement of R. Eleazar and permits salt water only if some oil is added, turning it into food. In the opinion of the Babli, the Mishnah in Ḥulin cannot be squared with the one in Ma‘serot but represents a third opinion ascribed to R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. .
What does he give? Tithes! That means, not heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain, what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.
1:8 . The text in Ḥallah is somewhat better; it is the original since the second paragraph following belongs only to Ḥallah . The initial statement is also quoted in Ma‘serot Halakhah 4:1. If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel , Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel . Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state Mishnah 1:7 . : “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount is 5/4 standard qab . Even if the total amount of flour the baker turns into sour dough is greater than that amount, there is no obligation of ḥallah since the flour never became his property. This argument is appropriate for questioning R. Joḥanan’s position, not R. Simeon ben Laqish’s. it is free from ḥallah .” (But all of them had the required amount. It introduces an extraneous argument; if the baker makes one big batch of sour dough from the flour and the obligated amount is not recognizable, it is clear that all is obligated. ?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah . But we have stated Mishnah 1:7. : “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah .” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately 1:8 : שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא לְקוּחוֹת וְהוּא חוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶה אוֹתָהּ עִיסָּה. “maybe he will find customers and he uses it immediately for dough”. Maybe the customer buys the sour dough not for making bread at home but for bread the baker will make for him. Then the sour dough is immediate ṭevel by the sale in the baker’s hands. The commentators change the text to: “maybe he will not find a customer and he uses it immediately for dough himself” . This is unnecessary and false since his own sour dough in his own bread dough can be put in order by one ḥallah given when the bread dough is completely kneaded. . He said to him, but was it not stated 1:8 , והא תנינן “did we not state”, formula appropriate for a Mishnah. But it seems that the formula (for a baraita ) used here is correct since מחייבת in the Mishnah is replaced by החייבת. (In Ḥallah , one reads only חייבת.) One has to conclude that the reading of the manuscripts, מחייבת, is not a scribal error but a stand-in for מחויבת. : “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan 3:7) he follows R. Joḥanan which probably he would not have done if R. Joḥanan disagreed with R. Yose, the preeminent Tanna. : Did we not state 4:5 (Note 81 ), about a field dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed. : “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and against Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.
1:7 . Since nobody makes bread out of sour dough without the addition of plain flour, sour dough is not bread dough ready to be baked, is not fully processed, and should not be subject to ḥallah . Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel , in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it.
“ What is Baalbek garlic? Any with only one hole surrounding the stem. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any with only one skin. What is Rikhpa onion? Any whose prick is dissolved in it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that has no poison.”
3:2 (fol. 37d) and Ševuot 3:9 (fol. 34d). Both Yerushalmi mss. agree here on the text. Therefore, the other texts may be used to instruct the text here but not to correct it. These are Cilician grits, these are square.” The last word is otherwise unknown. Lieberman prefers the reading of the quote from the Yerushalmi in Arukh , s . v . קלקי אילו גסין המרובעים׃ “these are the fat square ones.” . It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state‘ im 6:1. In Ševuot 3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Lev . 13:18–23 } is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.” : “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects הכנעה “lice”. ! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila ארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage . ! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.
“These are Egyptian lentils: All whose spheres are sharp-edged‘ im 6:1. In Ševuot 3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Lev . 13:18–23 } is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.” . Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that have no pebbles. What are colocasia? All whose pricks are short and their extensions are many.” What compares to it? Rebbi Yose said, like these qonyata הכנעה “lice”. .
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is crocusארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage . permitted as aftergrowth? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah asked, did we not state 4:8 . This shows that industrial products which fall under the rules of the Sabbatical fall under all restrictions as if they were food. : “One does not buy flax from anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical, not even combed?” Is flax not like wood chips? Rebbi Ḥinena said, because of its seed. Rebbi Mana said, if it were because of its seed, did we not state: “ 4:9 . One does not buy water or salt from anybody suspect of selling heave as profane?” Can you say, water or salt because of their seeds? No, as a fine. Here also as a fine decree from which no general conclusion can be drawn. Crocus might be permitted as aftergrowth. .
Menaḥem ben Maximus the brother of Jonathan Caiphas in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Flax may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. That is, if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden 4:8 . . Zeugos, the relative of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Vetch may be bought from anybody during the Sabbatical. Rebbi Yose said: Does our Mishnah say so? “The upper seed of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of egg plants, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten.” We have stated on this: Seeds of indigo, seeds of madder, and seeds of vetch. That implies, not vetch itself. Maybe if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden.
So is the Mishnah: The seeds on the stem of arum. Some woman had heave purslain on a block. They fell into a garden and sprouted. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan who permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, is this not the Mishnah: “And these may be eaten if their father was heave?” He said to him, Babylonian, when you cleared a potsherd for yourself, you found a pearl! You said, is that not the Mishnah!