MISHNAH: Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example “a dripping olive tree” in its time, if it was forgotten, is not subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. When does this apply? For its name, its production, and its place. By its name, if it was dripping or from Beth Shean. By its production, if it produced much. By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall. For all other olive trees, two are subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, three are not. Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olive trees.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written ( Deut . 24:19 ): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it was marked in his mind, is it as if it were marked? If it stood in the shadow 5:24) reads בצד “next to”, which probably is the correct reading. of a date palm, the date palm marks it. If two of them were dripping, each of them marks the other. If the entire field was of dripping olive trees? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.
Šofkānī drips oil. But did we not state “dripping,” so it must be that it yields much oil. But did we not state: “By its production, if it yields a lot.” So, Šofkānī yields much oil. Nĕṭūfah drips oil. Its production, it yields a lot, viz., it produces a lot of olives. Bês̄ānī , some say, really from Beth She’an; some say, it puts the other trees to shame by producing fourfold, similar to what we have stated: If all sheaves of the field are of one qab , except one which is of four qab and was forgotten. Since it produces more than others, it is considered marked. On condition that it produces every year? Since it produces most years it is considered marked.
“By its place, if it stood next to the wine-press or near a hole in the wall.” Is our Mishnah following the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; there it is movable near immovable, here it is immovable near immovable.
“ Rebbi Yose says, there is no law of the forgotten sheaf for olives.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, Rebbi Yose said this only in former times when olives were scarce because Hadrian, the evil one, had come and devastated the entire land. But today when olive trees are everywhere, they are under the law of the forgotten sheaf.
Rebbi Yose said, nobody applied the law of forgotten sheaves to olive trees except Rebbi Aqiba, for he drew inferences from “behind you, behind you.” Then there should be no “forgotten sheaf” for olive trees following Rebbi Yose who does not draw inferences from “behind you.. 24:20–21 : “If you shake your olive tree, do not pick single olives behind you ; they shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. If you harvest your vineyard, do not pick unripe berries behind you ; they shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” Behind you must refer to things forgotten, since one harvests always in front of himself. ” They objected, is not a sheaf subject to “forgotten sheaves”, and there it is not written “behind you.” Since it is written ( Deut . 24:19 ): “Do not return to take it,” it is as if “behind you” were written there.
Rebbi Jonah had a problem: That dripping olive tree, since it is marked, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose even if he started with it it, should it be as if he had not started with it?
MISHNAH: An olive tree standing between three rows of two rectangles, when forgotten, is not subject to the law of forgotten sheaves 3:25) Maimonides accepts the explanation, also given by R. Simson, that the olive tree is a single tree surrounded on three sides by three rows of trees, each row consisting of two trees, so that the surrounding trees hinder the access to the single tree. R. Simson rejects the idea that the tree should not be subject to the law because of difficulty of access.] . An olive tree which yields two seah , when forgotten, is not legally forgotten. When does this apply but to the marked trees mentioned in Mishnah 1. After one started harvesting, these are not protected unless they yield two seah . ? Only if he did not start with it, but if he started harvesting it, even a dripping olive tree in its time, when forgotten, is subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf. Whenever he 1:12) refers “him” to the poor. Once they have permission to search for olives under the tree, they may take the olives that are still on the tree, but not before (even though ususally olives are not harvested by climbing the tree but by shaking it.) R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David ( Mattenot Aniïm 1:12) refer “him” to the owner; as long as anything under the tree (the main harvest) is not legally forgotten, everything on the tree is his, independent of his state of mind regarding the olives remaining on the tree. has under it, he has at its crown. Rebbi Meïr says, from the moment that the maḥba is used is an instrument with which the branches of the olive tree are shaken to remove the olives still clinging to the branches. In all manuscripts of his tradition, the spelling is מחבה as a feminine, in accord with the feminine form of the verb. R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David explain maḥba as the leaves which hide olives and must be removed. Since Maimonides lived in olive growing societies, his explanation should be accepted. The root underlying מחבא seems to be Arabic ח̇בּא “to grow abundantly” (but cf. text at note 44). .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: “of two rectangles” and he forgot it 3:10 ). Rebbi Eleazar wants to emphasize that the correct reading is two , not three as in Yalqut Shimoni 937. Other explanations by J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה pp. 92–93 are unconvincing. . What are we dealing with? If it is because it is marked, are there not other olive trees is also the reading in Tosephta Peah 3:10 , Sifri Deut . 284. ? If it is because it is in a row, it is considered a row in itself. It must be because of row and of rows.
Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with an olive tree that can be shaken. Rebbi Yose said, not only one that can be shaken; since olive trees usually are first checked by shaking, none can be under the law of forgotten sheaves.
Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita 3:10 . The text here follows the Rome manuscript which is identical with that of the Tosephta. The Venice print has the positions of “recognizes” and “does not recognize” switched. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”
Hence, if it yields two seah , if it was forgotten it is not legally forgotten. It does not refer to this but to the first Mishnah: “Every olive tree that has a special name on the field, for example ‘a dripping olive tree’ in its time, if it was forgotten, it is not legally forgotten. Hence, if it yields two seah , if it was forgotten …” in its time, when forgotten is legally forgotten. But if it yields two seah , when forgotten it is not legally forgotten.”
“Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown.” One may explain this in two ways. Whenever he has under it, he has at its crown; hence, before that even if there is nothing under it, he has at its crown 1:12). . Another explanation: Whenever he has under it, he has nothing at its crown; by the time the maḥba was used, even though he has nothing at its crown he has under the tree.
It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai: When he puts away the knee cushion) and finishes, then he still has at the top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The remainder of the harvest. Rebbi Abbahu said, is … that which takes care of the hidden ones: ( 1Sam. 23:23 ) “Find out and see all the hiding places where he could hide.”
MISHNAH: What are dropped berries 19:10 . ? Anything that drops during vintage. If he was gathering grapes, cut off the bunch, it got mixed up in the leaves, fell to the ground and scattered, that belongs to the proprietor. He who puts a basket under the vine while he is gathering grapes robs the poor, and about him it was said ( Prov. 22:28 , 23:10 ): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.” What is a gleaning 19:10 , Deut. 24:21 ). In Arabic, the root means “going over the harvest a second time” in general. of grapes? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has either shoulder or dropping it belongs to the proprietor, in case of doubt it belongs to the poor. A gleaning on a cut branch, if it can be cut off together with a bunch it belongs to the proprietor, otherwise to the poor. An isolated berry, Rebbi Jehudah says, it is considered a bunch, but the sages say, a gleaning.
HALAKHAH: This means that dropped berries become sanctified in the act of falling down. Does this not simply answer Hilfai and toseftot and maintained that all necessary information could be obtained from the Mishnah. ’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: There is a difference, because he prevented them from reaching the ground.
( Tosephta Peah 3:11 ): “What are gleanings? Anything that has no shoulder and no dropping. If it has shoulder but no dropping, dropping but no shoulder, it belongs to the proprietor, if it is doubtful it belongs to the poor. What is a shoulder? Spread out one on top of the other. What is a dropping? They hand downward on the spine.”
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Only if they all touch the palm of his hand. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, it happened that they weighed a gleaning in Sepphoris and it was seven pounds, “a pound” of 12 oz. ? Rebbi Ḥinena said, if they put it on a board, every grape must touch the board “board, plank”; also “plot in a vineyard.” .
A Levite who received unprepared tithes18:26 ). The heave of the farmer has no minimum spelled out from the Torah, but it must be given from the harvest itself. The heave of the tithe is fixed at 10% but it may be given from anywhere ( Terumot 2:1); hence, the Levite may use any fruit he has for that tithe. and found in them gleanings may use them for the heave of the tithes even on other places. But do not gleanings belong to the poor? Rebbi Avin in the name of the rabbis from there: I say that they are gleanings cut with the bunches 3:14 ) simply states: “A Levite to whom grapes were given, among which he found gleanings, does not have to worry whether they might belong to the poor.” .
Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ( Is. 17:6 ): “There will remain in it gleanings as when one plucks olives, two or three kernels.” More than that is a grape.
Clarification 111b–112a ; the first ones also, very much changed, in Baba Batra 91b . כרם usually means “vineyard,” but in Jud. 15:5 כרם זית is a plantation of olive trees. . Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by the orchard of Doron. The sharecropper brought them one peach; they and their donkeys ate from it and left some over. They estimated it to be like a dish from Kefar Ḥananiah that contains a seah of lentils. After a time they passed by there, he brought them two or three peaches in one hand. They said to him, we would like some from that tree. He said to them, they are from it. On that, they quoted ( Ps. 107:34 ): “A fruit-bearing land into salt flats, because of the evil of its inhabitants.”
Rebbi Ḥanina said, when I immigrated here, I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of my donkey to measure around a young carob tree of the Land of Israel and it was not enough. I cut one carob pod and it filled my hand with honey.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed 91b .) .
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran, and one seah of wheat germ. But today, we do not even get one for one of grain contains empty space between grains. In milling, by necessity something is lost. One seah of grain yields much less than a seah of flour. Cf. Babli Ketubot 112a , Sotah 17b . .
Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Avin: Cinnamon was goat feed when the Jews were growing it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abin: The two daily offerings which were sacrificed every day used to be carried by a camel and their legs touched the ground. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Idi: It happened that someone tied his goat to a fig tree; when he returned, he found honey and milk mixed 111b , in the name of Rami bar Ezechiel, brother of Rav Jehudah, a wanderer between Galilee and Babylonia. .
Rebbi said to Rav Periri: Would you show me the bunch of grapes in your vineyard? He said to him, if you come out, I will show it. When he was still far away, he spied something like an ox. He said to him, does not the ox destroy the vineyard? He said to him, what you take for an ox is the bunch of grapes. He quoted for it ( Cant. 1:12 ): “As long as the King was at his round table, my nard gave its fragrance79;” the Temple is destroyed and you persist in your obstinacy? Immediately, they looked for it and it was never found again.
They brought before him two radishes from between New Year’s Day and the Great Fast. It was the year after a Sabbatical, and they were a full camel’s load. He said to them, are they not forbidden as aftergrowth? He said to him, they were sown at the end of New Year’s Day. At that moment did Rebbi permit to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year.
They asked before him, what is that which is written ( Joel 1:17 ): “Dried figs became mouldy under their shovels.” He said to them, we were raking honey, now we are raking rotten things instead. It happened that somebody had a row of fig trees; when he came, he found them surrounded by a fence of honey.
One person sowed turnips on his field; he used to cut them off and sell them. It happened that a fox made his nest in a turnip’s head. It happened in Shihin that one stalk of mustard plant had three leaves; one leaf was split off to cover a potter’s hut and they found on it three qab of mustard seed. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, I had a stem of mustard plant on my property and I climbed on it the way one climbs a fig tree.
It happened that someone sowed a seah of peas and it produced 300 seah. They said to him, the Holy One, praise to Him, has started to bless you. He answered, get away from here, if bad dew had not descended on it, it would have produced twice as much.
Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, it happened that Rebbi Jehudah said to his son in Sikhnin: Go and bring us dried figs from the barrel. He went and put his hand into the barrel, found it full of honey and said: Father, it is a barrel of honey. He said to him, put your hands deep into it and you will bring up the dried figs. It happened that Rebbi Yose said to his son in Sepphoris: Go and bring us dried figs from the upper floor. He went and found that honey was floating on the upper floor. Rebbi Ḥananiah was a dealer in bee’s honey; he also had honey obtained by roasting as a kind of dates, since vegetable honey is made from dates. However, the previous stories were all about the fact that earlier (before the war of Bar Kokhba but long after the destruction of the Temple) even figs produced sap so rich in sugar that it could be used as honey substitute. So one possible translation would be “of ẓeli figs”; it is unclear what kind they are. The translation assumes that it was bee’s honey, which may be obtained from the honey combs by heating. Then the “roasted” honey was lower quality honey obtained by roasting honey combs from which the first quality had been extracted by moderate heat, and honesty required that the customer be informed that the honey sold was of second quality only. “To roast” is Hebrew צלה, Arabic צלי. The word could also be derived from Arabic צוול “to clean out by washing”, צולה “chaff”, giving a similar meaning. . After a time they passed by him. He said to them, in order not to trick you, you should know that the honey that I gave you was from roasting. They said, from that one we want more because it is good for our purposes. He set aside its value honey. and built with it the House of Study of Sepphoris.
Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon went to a place where they brought him shrunk cabbage. He said to them, you put a lot of honey into it. They said to him, we did not put anything in, it is in its natural state.
MISHNAH: He who thins out vines since thinning is done early in the growing season and peah is designated at the end of the harvest. , just as he thins out his own so he thins out those of the poor, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, he may do so for his own but he is not empowered for those of the poor.
HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner. Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller. Rebbi Immi said to him: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him!
Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that Rebbi Jehudah changed his opinion. There he says, in both cases he takes them, deposits them on the fence and the poor comes and takes what is his; but here he says so! Because he squeezees them, they will produce more the next year. I should say also here, because he fertilizes it, it will produce more the next year. He said to him, it happens frequently Hence, the interest of the poor in not in the next crop. that he will sow vegetables and shelter them from the poor.
MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year19:23–24 ). If there is too much to be taken on a journey, it may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. The House of Hillel compare the yield of the fourth year to the Second Tithe that also has to be eaten in Jerusalem, since produce of the Second Tithe that is redeemed is subject to a surcharge of one fifth (from above, 25% from below). There are two kinds of removal the vineyard of the fourth year may be subject to; if it is compared to the Second Tithe it must be removed from the house at the end of the third and sixth years of every Sabbatical period; if the produce was that of a Sabbatical year, one may take it but only as long as wild animals find similar food on the field (in this case, in other unharvested vineyards) and it must be removed by being consumed before that time. The House of Shammai consider the yield of the fourth year as profane food, subject only to what is expressly spelled out in the verse. The argument of the House of Hillel, that the verse compares the vineyard in its fourth year to the Second Tithe, is given in Babli Qiddušin 54b , Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #8 . , the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.
HALAKHAH: It was stated 5:17. The entire discussion is found in Yerushalmi Maäser Šeni 5:3. : Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting all speak of נטע רבעי, a planting (a planted tree) in its fourth year. The extension of the Biblical commandment about the vineyard to all trees is discussed in Maäser Šeni , Chap. 5. in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse ( Lev. 19:24 ): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said 26 . . And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner 26:14 . ? It is stated: This 3 #9 . implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal 2:2 that First Fruits and the vineyard of the fourth year are not subject to either kind of removal. . And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground 5:19 states categorically that there can be no redemption while the grapes are still on the vine. However, see in Tosefta Kifšutah Maäser Šeni p. 786 the list of authorities who claim that this is only the required procedure, but that a redemption, if done on the vine, is valid after the fact. ?
Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then 5:3). should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse ( Lev. 19:24 ): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption 35a . The word פדיון “redemption” is missing in the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print; it has been added from the parallel text in Maäser Šeni. ? ( Lev. 19:24 ) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from identifying ה and ח. is very close to הּ. In Medieval German Jewish, as well in Talmudic Babylonian Jewish, h and ḥ were identical and חַ ,הַּ were used as rhyming sounds. The current Ashkenazic identification of the sounds of ח,כ (ḥ , k ) comes from the fact that Polish has only one ch sound; this was adopted by the Jews from their Gentile surroundings. While Biblical Hebrew probably had the two Semitic ח sounds, corresponding to Arabic خ، ح, one ḥ as in יצחק Isaac (Septuagint Ισαακ), the other k as in רחל Rachel (Septuagint Ραχηλ), in Mishnaic times these distinctions had disappeared long ago.
Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael ( Lev. 27:31 ): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting.
There we have stated 3:9: “The heave of Gentile and Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, their dedication is dedication. Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say, there is.” Even though the Gentile is not required to give heave, tithes, or to dedicate anything to the Temple, if he does it voluntarily, it must be treated according to all rules applying to heave, tithes, and dedications from Jews. : Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is 66b ) declares R. Jehudah to agree with R. Meïr that the Gentile’s arable land is subject to all duties, but this is not the opinion of the Yerushalmi. . Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile2:13 , where R. Jehudah is quoted that “a Gentile in Syria has no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’.” This follows the interpretation of R. Simson that R. Jehudah cannot speak of a Gentile in the Land of Israel, based on the Babli quoted in the preceding Note. However, R. Simson’s argument does not apply to the Yerushalmi; the direct testimony of R. Salomon ben Adrat ( Responsa attributed to Nachmanides 156) confirms the Yerushalmi text as it appears here, in Maäser Šeni , and in the Rome manuscript. It is true that in the end, one speaks only of Syria, but this cannot apply to R. Jehudah’s statement in the Mishnah or to R. Eleazar’s addition. . Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah 2:13 ; this is R. Zeïra’s proof against R. Bibi, that R. Jehudah does not negate the obligation of the fourth year for Jews in Syria. However, the paragraph after the next will show that the Yerushalmi follows R. Bibi, that there is no such obligation in Syria. says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.
Samuel bar Abba asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe, there should not be any fourth year after planting. Rebbi Yose said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there is the tithe for the poor. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.
Ḥeipha asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice 7:11–15 ) note only that four kinds of bread have to be brought and that one loaf each has to be given as heave to the officiating priest. The number of required loaves is not specified. The first heave has no fixed amount from the Torah; in the words of Samuel, one grain is enough for an entire silo. But since the number 1 is spelled out here and it is called heave, the natural inference is that the heave is the heave of the tithe given to the Levite, of which the Levite has to give 10% to the priest ( Num. 18:26 ). Hence, 1 is 10% of the required amount, and from each kind of bread 10 loaves have to be brought to the Temple ( Sifra Ẓav 7:1). only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard of quantities.
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land (Chap. 11, in the author’s edition pp. 116–118.) . Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.
It is written ( Lev. 19:25 ): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property 2:8 where R. Jehudah states that Second Tithe when wilfully and illegally diverted to profane use, such as bridal money to acquire a wife, becomes valid private property and the marriage is contracted, but if the same act was done in error, without intent to change the status of the Tithe, the Second Tithe remains holy, does not become profane, and the marriage is not contracted. , so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said 7:2 . This refers to the laws indicated in Lev. 22:10–14 . A non-priestly woman married to a priest may eat terumah. If she is divorced, or she becomes a widow without issue, she returns to her former non-priestly status and may not eat terumah. The Mishnah states that the servants of a non-priestly woman who was married to a priest and became a widow while pregnant with her first child, should not eat terumah. The first Mishnah had explained that there are two kinds of property a bride brings to her husband. For “property of dowry” נכסי מלוג the ownership resides with the wife. “Iron cattle” צאן ברזל becomes the husband’s property completely in exchange for an obligation to return full value in case of dissolution of the marriage. In the Halakhah, the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that her servants are “property of dowry” servants, but “iron cattle” servants are his and entitled to eat terumah since only their value has to be returned. She herself may not eat terumah unless and until she gives birth to a male child. On this, R. Abin says in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi that one has to follow what people do, and they do not let any slaves brought by the wife eat in such a situation. , as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly 45a , this is ascribed to Abbaie, an acquaintance of R. Abin. . And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; just as you say that the Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.
Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan 37b , this is stated by R. Assi, another student of R. Joḥanan. : A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr, 2:8 disagrees with R. Jehudah and states that one never may use the Second Tithe for bridal money since it belongs to Heaven rather than to the owner. The law of ḥallah ( Num. 15:20 ) states that it must be given to the priest as heave from your dough , and for R. Meïr it is not yours. is free from ḥallah , following Rebbi Jehudah it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside .
Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it is only due from dough made from grain. obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah ? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.
MISHNAH: A vineyard that produces only gleanings, Rebbi Eliezer says, they are for the proprietor, Rebbi Aqiba says, for the poor. Rebbi Eliezer said ( Deut. 24:21 ): “When you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it.” If there is no vintage, where are the gleanings? Rebbi Aqiba told him ( Lev. 19:10 ): “Do not take gleanings from your vineyard,” even if it is all gleanings. If that is so, why does it say “when you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it;” the poor have no right to the gleanings before the vintage.
HALAKHAH: Similarly, if there is no harvest there are no single berries 19:10 , gleaning and single berries are mentioned in one verse, they must follow the same rules. , until there should be vintage along vintage, not if a wild animal ate it.
How much is a vintage? In the school of Shila they said, three bunches that make a quarter, about 3.8 fl. oz. or 133 cm 3 ; cf. Berakhot p. 296. [Note 164] of wine.
Rebbi Aqiba certainly explains both verses. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “do not take gleanings from your vineyard”? So you should not say that, since the poor have no rights before harvest time, the proprietor acquired rights to them, it is necessary to say “do not take gleanings from your vineyard.”
MISHNAH: If someone dedicates his vineyard before gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings do not belong to the poor. But after the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor. Rebbi Yose said, they should give the value of their growth to the Temple. What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything he cannot stretch out his hands and take. On a single growing vine, once he is done with it.
HALAKHAH: There 4:8 (Yerushalmi 4:9), Tosephta Pesaḥim 3:19 . Taking the fruits from dedicated sycamores is one of the three things the people of Jericho did and against which the Sages protested. In the Babli, the discussion is Pesaḥim 56 a/b. The entire Halakhah also appears in Pesaḥim 4:9 . we have stated: “They permitted the use of sycamore figs Historia , Book XIII, §56, already notes that the fruits of the “Egyptian fig” sit on the stem, not on branches.) The fruits are of such inferior quality that they do not qualify as objects of trade. (Cf. Tosefta Kifšutah I, p. 361.) from Temple trees. The 3:22 . Sages told them: Do you not agree with us that fruits from Temple property are forbidden? They said to them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and their fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated only the stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder whether if somebody dedicates an orchard, he may reserve the growth for himself 3:6, the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meïlah (larceny committed on Temple property.) In contrast, R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meïlah , therefore he requires in our Mishnah the poor to pay for the expenditures of tending the vines during the growing season. As the Babli ( Pesaḥim 56b ) points out, the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. However, this prohibition is not written in the Torah. While any condition that goes against a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Halakhah 6:9), a condition that goes against a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It is unresolved whether the ancestors of the people of Jericho had the right to reserve for themselves the use of the sycamore figs. . Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, they belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? That is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated 3:15 . : “If somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple it is exempt from orlah , from the fourth year, and from gleanings, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.”
Rebbi Zeïra 4:9 (fol. 31b). in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ( Lev . 25:2 ): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat it without redemption since Temple property cannot exit without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical. 25:6 ): “The rest of the Land should be for you to eat,” we infer that the spontaneous growth is there to be eaten, not to be traded. It is possible to trade produce of the Sabbatical year as long as the final use is for food. The Temple has no need for money for food since the public sacrifices must be paid from the Temple tax of half a šeqel and private sacrifices are paid by the donors. Valuables donated to the Temple are used for building upkeep, vessels, and implements. Any monetary gain from Sabbatical produce for these purposes is forbidden; how can the Temple accept illegal money? ! He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said4:10 : “If they were on the road (a person A and another B who had made a vow not to use anything belonging to A). If B has nothing to eat, A gives food to a third person as a gift and B may use it. If no third person is with them, A puts the food up on a fence or a rock and says: This is abandoned to anybody who wants it. B may take and eat it, but Rebbi Yose forbids it.” On this, R. Joḥanan notes in Halakha 4:10 that R. Yose forbids only because the food was forbidden to B before it was declared abandoned; the abandonment is invalid relative to B. But if something was abandoned before any vow was made, R. Yose agrees that the vow cannot retroactively influence the status of abandoned property. Cf. Chapter 6, Note 17 . : The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here, because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened and they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose.
Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since any single free-standing vine is a separate planting.