MISHNAH: Cloth dyed with ‘ orlah shells 7:3. should be burned is forbidden for all usufruct, any product obtained by using ‘ orlah is also forbidden. . If it became mixed up with others, all should be burned, the words of Rebbi Meїr 4, Note 64 . ; but the Sages said, it should be lifted by one in 200.
HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘ orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written ( Lev . 19:23 ): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” 36b ). Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it. 31(1977) 187–192], the two-sheeted hyperboloid is composed of two separate surfaces. Therefore, in the spirit of the times the reformulation is appropriate. The discussion here is hinted at in Ma‘serot 4:6, Note 88. The Amora quoted there, Samuel, is known as strict adherent of Ptolemaic astronomy but it seems that in the quote, he prefers the modern formulation ( Note 5 ) to the classical. This fits with his acceptance of infinite decimal expansions as numbers ( Demay 7:8, Note 104 ).
2:1, fol. 28c; the parallel in the Babli is Pesaḥim 21b–23a . The discussion is about the prohibition of usufruct of ‘ orlah fruits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? ( Ex . 22:30 ) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat.” And what did it explain about a carcass? ( Deut . 14:21 ) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement 21b ), Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later ( Note 31 ) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule appealed to by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition , in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196. Since here the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted. . What does one forbid to the dog?
But is it not written ( Lev . 7:23 ): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written ( Lev . 7:24 ): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal” 23a , the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra ( Ẓaw Paraša 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not subject to the impurity of food. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 33 ), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property. . But is it not written ( Deut . 12:16 ): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” 22b , deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136 ). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut . 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written ( Gen . 32:33 ): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal 22a . R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and torn meat was permitted for the sojourner (a monotheistic Gentile adhering to the Seven Commandments observed by Noe) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 15 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct. . But is it not written ( Lev . 23:14 ): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat” ceremony. ? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written ( Lev . 11:42 ): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct are abominations”, they (snakes and centipedes) are abominations but not anything manufactured from them. (Explanation of R. H. Kanievski.) .
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox 24b , explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound. The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans ( Ex. 21:28 , 29 ). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct; this is derived from Ex. 21:28 , cf. Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said ( Deut. 22:9 ): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled 8:1, Note 6 . . For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ‘orlah fruit. , a prohibition to eat is written. 19:23 . Since R. Joḥanan reads לא יאכל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar. , a prohibition to remove it is not written.
In a baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels Pesaḥim 28c, Avodah Zarah 45b . In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 22b , Qiddušin 56b , Baba Qama 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be the rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex . 21:28 : וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said ( Ex. 21:28 ): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name, Hebrew בשם instead of משמיה. The latter is an inadvertent Babylonism characteristic of learned scribes. of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.
The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a , Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic: “Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” This is a possible reading since purification offerings can be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, “(in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned.” This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification. for all cases is ( Lev. 6:23 ): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said ( Lev . 7:23 ): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said ( Lev. 7:24 ): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven 23a , the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra ( Ẓaw Paraša 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not subject to the impurity of food. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 33 ), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property. . If one understands what has been said ( Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares 22b , deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136 ). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut . 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. . If one understands what has been said ( Deut. 14:21 ) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said ( Ex. 22:30 ): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct 22a , this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev . 17:4 . .
A baraita 16, p. 51. supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “( Ex. 13:3 ) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says ( Deut. 16:3 ): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi. ; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan. 2:1 .
It is obvious that the gound cannot be forbidden dyes. It is the position of the Yerushalmi that natural ground cannot be forbidden. In the case of pagan worship of sacred grounds, this means that the ground itself is always permitted but that any building or offerings deposited on the ground are forbidden for all usufruct. In that case also, the Yerushalmi ( Avodah Zarah 3:6, fol. 42d) takes the exemption of the bare ground as obvious but the Babli ( Avodah Zarah 51b ) needs a verse to exempt worshipped bare ground. . If one painted a figure on the ground it is forbidden. If he colored a living being, if he worshipped it, it is not forbidden Yerushalmi 3:6 fol. 41d, Babli 51b) agree that living beings cannot become forbidden even by being worshipped (but they will be disqualified from becoming sacrifices.) ; because he colored it more strict than those of idolatry? did he make it forbidden? Hence, if he colored it it is of questionable status.
How do you treat a large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut into pieces? As one locked up or declared absolute. 13:47–59 . When shown to a Cohen, it first has to be locked up for seven days. If in these days the discoloration has spread, the cloth is declared absolutely leprous, it must be burned and, therefore, all usufruct is forbidden. Mishnah Nega‘im 11:12 states that large pieces of cloth both locked up and absolute are impure. A large piece covers at least three fingers square. The difference is that if the locked-up cloth is cut into pieces none of which is “large”, all are pure since no cloth covering less than 3 fingers square can become impure. But if the large cloth is absolutely “leprous”, the impurity is not eliminated by cutting the cloth into small pieces. The comparison of leprosy of cloth to the prohibition of ‘orlah does not lead to a clear result. ? If you treat it as locked up it is permitted, as declared absolute it will be forbidden.
If he dyed it dye both times. and then dyed a second time and spoiled it 10, Note 21 ). , if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘ orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden 10, Note 21 ). , here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large 4:8, Note 68 . The implication is that the cloth should be permitted if the amount of pomegranate dye is more than 200 times that of the forbidden walnut dye. ?” Rav Huna 4 (Note 86 ), Rebbi Ḥuna. The reading in Terumot is preferable. It is not clear what the quote should prove if not that in these cases one uses all possible ways of saving the cloth. said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind10, Notes 115 ff. , can it be compared to 4:8, Note 67 . : “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them dye but a 200 times larger number is dyed with profane dye, the mixture will be permitted. , but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, pigments in pigments become insignificant in 200. Fluid dyes in fluid dyes by a majority.
Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias may be used if mixed with a larger amount of permitted dye, but that dyestuff prepared by cooking profane pigment with ‘orlah fuel, whose prohibition is only secondary, can be used if mixed with a larger amount of regular profane dyestuff. [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah prohibits even as fuel, the leniency of R. Abba bar Mamal is hard to understand. In this respect, there is no difference between cooking food and boiling for dyeing. disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel 17:6 . The word is explained by Rashi and R. Ḥananel to mean “gourd”; in particular a hollowed gourd used as a vessel. Only Maimonides’s explanation makes sense here. One (smaller?) vessel was used with ‘orlah fuel; many larger pots were used for the other dyestuffs. among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past 2:7, Note 162; cf. also Notes 114, 118 in Chapter 2. . How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.
2:3, fol. 41b. Neither of the two text is without problems. There 2:3. , we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery 32a ) explains that this is very porous pottery which Roman soldiers used to soak in wine and carry with them, so it could be soaked in water and provide a taste of wine. There is no explanation of the term in the Yerushalmi. Perhaps the word has nothing to do with Adria, Adrianoi in Mysia, or the emperor Hadrian, and should be read הֻדְרִייָני “wine pots”, from Greek ὑδρία, ἡ, “water pot; vessel, wine pot” (Liddel & Scott) (E. G.). .” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, is impossible since R. Jeremiah was R. Zeïra’s student. Either the two names should be switched, or the second author is Rav Jeremiah (an unlikely scenario given the difference in time), or it should be “R. Joḥanan” instead of “R. Jeremiah”. The original formulation cannot be recovered. : This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct, is impossible since R. Jeremiah was R. Zeïra’s student. Either the two names should be switched, or the second author is Rav Jeremiah (an unlikely scenario given the difference in time), or it should be “R. Joḥanan” instead of “R. Jeremiah”. The original formulation cannot be recovered. . Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.
May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah: R. Jeremiah. While the reading here is not impossible, the one in Avodah Zarah is more probable. asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth dyes. , which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.
Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state 3:9. : “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. 5:10. The question is: Why are textiles produced or processed with forbidden materials totally forbidden but wine mixed with forbidden wine, while unusable for Jews, can be sold if only the Jewish owner is not paid for the forbidden part? Why could the cloth not be sold for its value minus the cost of dying? If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state 5:10. The question is: Why are textiles produced or processed with forbidden materials totally forbidden but wine mixed with forbidden wine, while unusable for Jews, can be sold if only the Jewish owner is not paid for the forbidden part? Why could the cloth not be sold for its value minus the cost of dying? : “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles. 19:14 ). ; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.
MISHNAH: If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a sîṭ with hand-breadth (סילוק לשבת שקלים). R. Ḥananel (followed by Arukh ), defines sîṭ as half a hand-breadth. Rashi ( Šabbat 106a ) following the Babli defines sîṭ as the distance spanned between thumb and index finger; this is also the definition of Maimonides.. with ‘orlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool. 15:19 ). Since a firstling is a sacrifice, nothing from it, other than its meat, may be used. in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir well-being sacrifice ( Num . 6:18 ). or firstling donkey. 13:13 . After redemption, the firstling donkey is fully profane. in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified, second paragraph.) it sanctifies in the most minute amount.
HALAKHAH: Who stated “ sîṭ ”? Rebbi Meïr! But for the Sages, sîṭ or less than a sîṭ follow the same rules.
6:6 and Avodah Zarah 5:12. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct 5:12) whether unprocessed forbidden materials could be made insignificant in permitted ones. Since in the meantime it was ruled that processing does not make any difference, you (R. Ḥiyya the Sepphorean) cannot object now. .
There, we have stated: “These have to be burned 7:5 . The list includes ‘orlah and vineyard kilaim. .” And we have stated: “These have to be buried. 7:4 . The list includes the hair of a nazir and the (unredeemed) firstling donkey. The “hair of a nazir ” must refer to an impure nazir who must shave before starting a new period ( Num. 6:9 ) since the pure hair must be burned under the well-being sacrifice. ” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried, the nazir’s hair must be buried but in the Mishnah here, sackcloth made from such hair must be burned. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple hair which must be burned by biblical decree. , there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir , there about an impure nazir . But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir , there about an impure nazir ? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.
“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ . Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted 5:4 (discussed in Babli Bekhorot 26a/b ), where everybody agrees that a firstling which has been declared blemished has become profane in the hand of the Cohen. Even a blemished firstling can be used only for food but after slaughter the hide (whether from an unblemished or a blemished animal) can legally be shorn. The disagreement is if it was shorn before being slaughtered, where for Aqabia ben Mehallalel the slaughter retroactively legitimates the shearing but for the Sages the wool is forbidden by rabbinic decree, so people would not raise firstlings. The question is not answered since, for the Sages, hair taken prematurely is sanctified and will never be permitted. ?
Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”
MISHNAH: A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned. If it was mixed with mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200. If one heated an oven with ‘orlah shells and used it to bake bread, the bread must be burned. If it was mixed with others it may be lifted by one in 200.
HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth wood used as coals which now is in the process of being spent. This is considered as already spent and the ashes of everything forbidden for usufruct are permitted except ashes of idolatrous objects. is permitted. Is that not a baraita is always quoted in this abbreviated form; cf. also Babli, Pesaḥim 26b and Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:4. The basic text is Tosephta ‘Orlah 7: “A (clay) oven heated with ‘orlah shells if it is new (never before heated) must be torn down (since by the first firing it becomes usable); if it is old it must be cooled (not to profit from the ‘orlah fire.) If he baked or cooked with charcoal ( of ‘orlah , which can be considered spent wood) it is permitted. The ashes of anything (forbidden for usufruct) are permitted except the ashes of a holy tree (since it is ḥerem ). The ashes of clothes affected with mold disease ( Lev . 13:47–59 ) and the dust from a leprous house ( Lev . 33:53) are forbidden for usufruct.” The last sentence of the Tosephta leads up to the next paragraph. : “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.
If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written ( Lev . 14:44 ): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down. 12:3 ), including the ashes of holy trees, for the leprous house the root נתץ ( Lev . 14:45 ) must mean the same (cf. Berakhot 7, Note 41 ). .”
MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim , they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.
HALAKHAH: How much is a bundle? 25 plants. Rebbi Jonah said, four to a bed 10:5, Notes 52,53. Fenugreek is never sold by the piece ib quantities less than a bundle. In Terumot , R. Joḥanan is mentioned instead of R. Jonah. .
Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there17:4 . The Mishnah refers to the rule that a vessel which has a hole the size of an average pomegranate is no longer considered a vessel and cannot be impure. There is a discussion whether “average pomegranate” means “Badan pomegranate.” : “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba for heave and tithes. The reading חצירי is that of the scribe of the ms. who corrected it to חריצי, the form found in the Venice text. The text in Kelim reads חצירי “leeks”; neither Hebrew חריץ “incision, furrow”, nor Arabic ח̇רצ “palm branch” make any sense here. leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”
Does one not count other pomegranates? But Badan pomegranates one usually counts because they are preferred; other pomegranates one does not usually count because they are not preferred.
MISHNAH: They are: Breakable walnuts#11 (ed. M. Friedmann, Wien 1880, p. 42b) there are three kinds of walnuts: Those with breakable shells (which do not need a nutcracker), normal ones, and those with extra hard shells. and pomegranates from Badan, sealed amphoras, beet roots 1:4 according to J. N. Epstein defines as spines of beet greens; he reads the Arabic definition as a gloss אלצלעא אלסִלק; the traditional reading is אצל אלסלק “beet root”. Meïri ( Beẓah , ed. Lange-Schlesinger, Jerusalem 1965, p. 22 ) explains as: “A kind of beet which is not smooth but somewhat hairy, which is rough to the touch and very red; the expression חלפי comes from Alfalfa.” , heads of cabbage כרוב. , and Greek gourd. Rebbi Aqiba says, also non-commercial loaves. This refers to ‘orlah and vineyard kilaim, as the case may be the last four may be forbidden as vineyard kilaim. .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked: Therefore, not breakable almonds?
The Mishnah is about sealed among sealed. But a sealed one among open ones which was opened, or an open one among sealed ones which was sealed again need a measure, 1 in 200 for ‘orlah . When the sealed one was sealed among open amphoras, it was recognizable and no problem existed. This eliminates the rule that the barrel could never become insignificant. . How is an open one among sealed ones possible? Rebbi Zeïra said, explain as open at the grocer’s and sealed at the private person’s. But did we not state “it was sealed again”? Explain it if the private person came and took it back.
Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All these gourds and pumpkins we eat fall under the rules of Greek gourd.
Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rebbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, ‘orlah does not always apply and untithed Badan pomegranates mixed with tithed ones always make ṭevel irrespective of the amounts. But their place is not in the Mishnah since “as the case may be” does not apply to heave which is a rabbinic obligation on all produce. .
MISHNAH: If the walnuts were broken, the pomegranates dispersed, the amphoras opened, the gourds cut, the loaves broken, they may be lifted by one in 200.
HALAKHAH: If they fell down. Whole ones all were forbidden. Broken they are not more valuable than any other broken walnuts. Can they be lifted by 1 in 200? and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose 54b , this is reported as the common opinion of RR. Jehudah, Yose, and Simeon. says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added 2:3. , unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.
4:8, Note 83 , and ‘Orlah 1:5, Note 165. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden; this remainder will be permitted if they have been opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “ if they have been opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.
They asked at the House of Rebbi Yannai: Does a gourd which was cooked The ms. has שלקטה “which he collected”. In the version of the ms. the question is trivial. Since gourds are sold by the piece, the collection of the gourd is the end of processing and, since it may be taken directly to market, it immediately becomes subject to heave and tithes. Therefore, the version of the print is preferable. Since gourds grow on very long tendrils, it is possible in principle to cook the gourd while it is still connected to its root. while connected to the ground create ṭevel for tithes? Levi asked, can it become impure as food? If it was cooked it is as if cut into pieces. The word of Samuel says that it becomes impure as food, as Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Samuel 127b where it is pointed out that in general fruits become food only when harvested. Raisins on the vine are food regarding impurity but not yet food regarding the Sabbath. The Tosephta ( Uqeẓin 2:11) notes that any other shriveled fruit on the branch is not food. : Figs and raisins which shriveled on the tree may become impure as food and anybody who takes them down on the Sabbath is guilty of harvesting.
“If the loaves were broken”. The Mishnah is Rebbi Aqiba’s since “Rebbi Aqiba says, also non-commercial loaves.”
MISHNAH: A doubtful case of ‘orlah in the Land of Israel is forbidden, in Syria 7, Note 119 . permitted, and outside the Land one goes and buys on condition he not see the harvesting being done. If a vineyard is planted with vegetables and vegetables are sold on the outside , in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted, and outside the Land he goes and harvests on condition he not harvest with his own hands. New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah23:9–14. , ‘orlah from practice, and kilaim by rabbinic decree.
HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”
“Outside the Land he goes, he harvests on condition that he not harvest with his own hands.” Rebbi Yudan said, that also should be equal to the first, “he turns in and buys on condition he not see him harvesting.”
“New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer’s as we have stated there 1:9 . The parallel discussion is in the Babli, Qiddušin 38a/b . : “Any commandment not connected with the Land applies both inside and outside the Land. But any connected with the Land applies only inside the Land except for ‘orlah and kilaim. Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer 1:9 , fol. 61d. ? Everywhere, ( Lev. 23:14 ) “in all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported.
Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? He said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles, cf. Kilaim 1:7, Notes 122–140 . . But ḥallah only applies to Israel, as it is written ( Num. 15:20 ): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.
“ ‘Orlah from practice”. Samuel said, practice of the country by consensus. The same disagreement is discussed in the Babli, Qiddušin 39a . . Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice from Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Assi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice from Moses on Sinai, and you say so outside the Land is of almost biblical status, why can the Mishnah permit all doubtful cases? ? He said, when practice was proclaimed, it was given in this way. He said, if I had come to the Land of Israel never applies outside the Land is quoted only in the Babli. only to hear this it would have been been enough for me.
“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim . Therefore, kilaim of seeds except those growing in a vineyard. are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim . Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden 39a , this is the opinion of Samuel but practice follows what here is Samuel’s opinion. . Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. ( Lev . 19:19 ) “You must keep My basic Laws 1, Notes 122,124. , your animals you should not mate kilaim , your field you shall not sow kilaim , …, ša‘aṭnez shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land 1:9 . The parallel discussion is in the Babli, Qiddušin 38a/b . , so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.
A person sowed his field with barley and turnips. Ḥanin from Gobya passed by and tore them out. The case came before Samuel who fined him, as we have stated 2:16 . The parallel in the Babli, Avodah Zarah 63b/64a , while in language closer to the Tosephta than the Yerushalmi text, has “Gentile” in place of “Jew”. : “One does not work with a Jew in kilaim , but one does help him to tear out kilaim because that helps to diminish sin.”
It was stated 2:16 . : “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim also falls on Gentiles; cf. Note 168 . , be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma or Beth Ana Umma. Tosephta Ahilut 18:4 has Hippos and Ascalon as examples of such pagan enclaves. If the place is not one settled by the returnees from Babylonia (or, in Galilee, was a place of Israelites never exiled), it is formally outside the Land and the Gentile can plant or sow kilaim without guilt; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1. and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim . Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita : “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim , be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim . Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim . Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita : “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim , be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim . Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim . Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.