MISHNAH: One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs Chapter 5, Note 8 ); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry). became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap [of grain]. If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other. Rebbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error 32a ) holds the Mishnah to be a biblical law, applicable only if the impure produce had been pure when it came under the obligation of heave. The Yerushalmi agrees that the prohibition has some biblical basis but it assumes the Mishnah to be applicable without restrictions. {Maimonides translates שוגג by Arabic סאהי “inattentive, absent-minded, distracted”; מזיד by מתעמד “deliberate, premeditated, willful; intentional”.} , his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has ṭevel tithe which he continually uses to give, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he had known of it earlier. He holds that then his action cannot be unintentional, only negligent. , even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels containing at least 40 seah of water. Immersion is a rabbinical prohibition on the Sabbath because it is making an unusable vessel usable, which in the case of visibly unusable vessels would be a biblical prohibition and a deadly sin. on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten. He who plants on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.
HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai ( Num . 18:27 ): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure, Chapter 2, Note 141 ) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared. , even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible 13b , s. v. כשם; Giṭṭin 30b, s. v. וכי ; Menaḥot 54b, s. v. כך ; Bekhorot 59b, s. v. אף ). . In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure. ”.
Everything teaches for itself and for others, the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai ( Num . 18:28 ): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest. Cahana said ( Num . 18:29 ): “From its best, the sanctified part from it;” take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure. but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? ( Num . 18:28 ) “From all of your tithes,” one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce.
Heave of the tithe is taken from pure produce for pure, from impure for impure, from pure for impure, but not from impure for pure. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, just as it may not be taken from impure for pure, so it may not be taken from impure for impure. Rebbi Neḥemiah agrees in the case of demay 115b , Tosephta 3:19 ) this is formulated as: “R. Neḥemiah says, one gives from impure produce for impure only in the case of demay ,” since then the obligation is not clear-cut. . That is, if he has from the same kind. If he does not have anything from the same kind, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya went with Rebbi Zeïra to Ḥammat Gader. He bought him a roll Chap. 6, Note 103. and wanted to put it in order from one day to the next which has to be given for bread from an uncertified baker ( Demay Halakhah 5:1). Since the roll was for next morning’s breakfast, R. Ḥanina was wondering whether R. Neḥemiah would permit giving heave now since a roll handled by the unobservant certainly was impure, having been prepared for impurity by the water needed to make the dough. . He said to him: We do not have to worry about a single opinion! Can you say that he had from the same kind if some pure food of the same kind is in his possession. However, the question remains open since the only pure roll R. Ḥanania could possibly have bought the next day would have to be one made with fruit juice ( Demay Halakhah 5:1, Note 8 ) and it is most unlikely that such rolls would be available commercially. ?
“In truth; Chapter 2, cf. Note 36 . ” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.
“If a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part;” but if part of it becomes impure is not all of it impure? The Mishnah deals with the case that they are connected only by fruit juice Chapter 5, Note 8 ); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry). . But will it not be cut into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected.
“And similarly for a bunch of vegetable.” The Mishnah deals with the case that it became impure as a bunch but when the single stalks were impure and he bound them together, this does not apply. But will it not be split and made into two parts in the end? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected. What is the situation if a bundle became impure, he unbound it and bound it again?
Should we have stated only fig cake and neither bunch nor heap? If we had stated about fig cake and not bunch we would have said he may give heave for the fig cake which is all one body but not for the bunch which is not one body. So it is necessary to state also “bunch”. If we had stated bunch not heap, we would have said he may give heave for the bunch because it is all held together but not for the heap which is not held together in one piece. So it is necessary to state fig-cake, necessary to state bunch, and necessary to state heap.
Since we stated: “If there were two fig-cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai ( Num . 18:27 ): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain, Chapter 2, Note 141 ) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared. ,” etc.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons Chapter 1, Note 38 . or squash.
If there were two fig cakes, one partially impure and one partially pure Chapter 5, Note 8 ); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry). , may one give heave from one for the other? If he had two heaps, and from both of them he had given part of heaves and tithes, may he give heave from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them ( Eccl . 4:5 ): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave from one for the other.
for the textual variants. “If somebody brought many kinds in a box, cabbage on top and cabbage on the bottom but something else in between, he may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.” That means, if there is no empty space. But if there is empty space he may give heave or tithe from one for the other. “The entire house of the wine press is one.” The entire threshing house is one. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, only if the main threshing place is in the middle. So far this is for wheat; [it is] the same even for stubbles, even for straw.
Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Was impure [produce] between them? He said to him, is that biting Chapter 9, Note 172 , Mishnah Ḥallah 2:4 . ? The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: If there was a blanket between them? He said to them, that is the case of the five sacks, as it was stated: “Five sacks on the threshing floor, one does not give heave and tithes from one for the other. 3:11, the text reads: “One gives heave and tithes from one for the other.” While the reading of the Tosephta does not prove anything for the Yerushalmi, the text in Ma‘aser Šeni indicates that the text here is corrupt. Maimonides ( Terumot 3:18) and Roš ( Hilkhot Ḥallah 4) follow the text in Ma‘aser Šeni . ”
It was stated 2:8 (fol. 58d) the entire paragraph. : “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs, “olives”. This reading is required since eggs are not subject to heave. Also, the width of an egg is only an upper bound on the diameter of the funnel; since all olives touching the impure olives or their brine will become impure, one certainly is interested in minimizing the number of impure olives generated. In addition, unless the diameter of the funnel is less than the width of an olive, the pure olives filled into the funnel must be completely dry, otherwise they all become impure. and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ 2:8 (fol. 58d) the entire paragraph. They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.
There 4:6. , we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage in breakage and profane in spillage, never heave, and does not make the remaining wine dema‘ (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 175 , Chapter 4, Note 25 ; Terumot Chapter 5). Dema‘ wine is almost worthless. but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom Chapter 6, Note 136 . . Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel invalidates heave but not ṭevel and certainly not profane wine. Therefore, a ṭevul yom may work in a winery producing pure wine and R. Simeon is right when he assumes that a reservation concerning the touch of a ṭevul yom is in the mind of the person taking heave, even if this is not consciously expressed. Cf. also Ḥallah 3:2, Note 43 . .
It was stated 2:16–17, formulated as anonymous statement. {In the Rome ms., the name of the tradent is R. Yose. This reading is proven false in the next paragraph.} The Tosephta cannot represent the Yerushalmi tradition since for תרומה גדולה it has תרומת ראשית “beginning heave”, a reference to Num . 18:12 . : “Rebbi Jehudah said, about what was this said? About Great Heave which must be given from what is earmarked. But for the heave of the tithe, everything is supposed to be whole. If he gave Great Heave and heave of the tithe together, it is not whole.” Jehudah ben Rebbi said, he certainly did not want to overstep the words of the Torah in giving heave of the tithe before the Great Heave. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Did we not state that “one may not give heave from impure produce for pure”? Think about it, when he did it and said, I did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if you say so, you let him flee from a minor sin to a major one! Ṭevel is a deadly sin, but an impure person who ate pure food oversteps a positive commandment prohibition. It must read: “a pure person who ate impure food”, cf. Num . 18:11 : “Every pure person in your house shall eat it,” viz ., pure heave. The details are given in Bikkurim 2:1 ; there the text is as corrected here. .
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If somebody gave heave from impure for pure produce, whether it was in error or intentionally, what he did is done.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Assi: There, it is when he thought that it was pure when he had known that it was impure, but he was of the opinion that one may give heave from impure for pure produce? He said to him, that is so, Rebbi holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Yose it would not make any difference.
2:7, this paragraph also in Beẓah 2:1. Our Mishnah is about large vessels, but with small vessels one may use a ruse and immerse them, as Rebbi Hoshaia had stated 16:12 , Beẓah 2:9 ; a similar baraita quoted in Babli Beẓah 18a . The Tosephta makes the procedure explicit: “Vessels impure in original impurity may not be immersed on a holiday, and certainly not on the Sabbath. But one may fill a cup, or a pail, or a bucket in order to drink at the same time one thinks about it ” [that it should be a valid immersion.] Impurity can be removed only by conscious immersion. : “A person may fill an impure vessel from the cistern as a ruse and immerse it.” Also, we have stated: “If his pail or garment fell into the cistern, one may use this as a ruse and immerse them.” Two Amoraïm, one says [one may use a ruse] for vessels impure in original impurity; but the other one says [only] for vessels impure in derivative impurity Chapter 2, Note 137. The language of the Tosephta shows that it was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi. . The one who said in derivative impurity objected to the one who said in original impurity: Even on weekdays, would it not need sundown. As stated in Note 51 , immersion purifies immediately for all profane food and purposes. ? He said to him, if he wants to use them in purity for profane food.
Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman washes a cup here, a bowl there, a dish there; it turns out that her entire house was wetted on the Sabbath 15:3 (fol. 15b). The house has a dirt floor, and periodic wetting is needed to keep the air dust free. The Babli ( Šabbat 95a ) notes that this trick is superfluous in Babylonian practice. The Babli follows R. Simeon for whom any work is permitted on the Sabbath if its intention is legitimate and permitted, even if some side effect would constitute a forbidden action if done by itself, unless the forbidden action is unavoidable. In our case, wetting the floor to strengthen the ground and the adobe house would be an action derivative of building and forbidden. But wetting the floor lightly to avoid dust is a legitimate action and, since in this case the water will evaporate quickly and any building effect would be temporary, it will be permitted outright. It follows that the Yerushalmi rejects the point of view of Rebbi Simeon. .
Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated 2:15 ; Babli Ketubot 34a , and partially in Šabbat 38a , Beẓah 17a , Baba Qama 71a , Ḥulin 15a , Giṭṭin 52b . From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Šabbat 3:1, fol. 5d. : “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian already then meant “Alexander’s”. said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr 15a , Rav is reported to publicly proclaiming R. Jehudah’s rule. , in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated 2:16 . : “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state 2:14 . The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph. : “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.
“ 2:14 . The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph. They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden, deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish better the more it shrinks? Cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of turnips and leeks as dishes better the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found eggs and forbade them, hot water and permitted it. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like ḥizrar apples 4:1 . The eggs must have been boiled a very long time to shrink to this small size. The statement might disagree with the Babli which reports that Samuel used eggs dipped alternatingly into boiling and cold water 1000 times as a diagnostic device for ulcers and intestinal bleeding since they were so hard that they were not digested and could be examined after evacuation but were small enough to be swallowed whole ( Nedarim 50b ). and they tasted delicious like sweet bread.
It was stated 3:1 . ‘ Assasiot are an undetermined kind of legumes (in the words of the Gaonim: they exist in the Land of Israel but not in Babylonia) which need very long cooking to become edible, similar to lupines. Compare Arabic عصّ “to harden”. : “A woman should not fill a pot with ‘assasiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rebbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct, did not Rebbi Yose say, “ 2:21 . Both reasons are given in the Tosephta as basis of the decision of the anonymous majority but R. Jehudah’s statement is left without explanation. The baraita in the Babli ( Giṭṭin 53b ) gives no reasons at all. He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the other way around. In the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out, on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional because the profit of the Sabbath [is forbidden] to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths and must be redeemed in the fourth year, everybody will realize that the tree was illegally planted in the Sabbatical. . What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is counted is the Sabbatical, the 30 days are not counted; cf. Ševi‘it 2:6, Mishnah and Note 45. . Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; can it be explained for counting? But you have to say because of suspicion; they fined for the unintentional because of the intentional 3:7 . The text of the last clause in Šabbat is longer but the formulation here seems to be the original one. .
MISHNAH: One does not give heave from one species for another species; if he gave, his heave is no heave. All kinds of wheat are one. All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other. At a place where there is a Cohen one gives from the best, but where there is no Cohen he gives from what is durable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one always gives from the best. One gives a small whole onion as heave but not half a large onion. Rebbi Jehudah says it is not so, one rather gives half a large onion. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said one gives onions of town people as heave for rural ones but not rural ones for those of town people because they are city-dwellers’ food.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah. ( Num . 18:12 ): “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain.” Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.
“All kinds of wheat are one.” It is needed [since it applies] even from white wheat on brown wheat and vice-versa Chapter 2, Notes 85–86 . .
“All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other.” It was stated 54b . : “One gives as heave fresh figs for dried figs; dried figs go by count. Dried figs for fresh figs by volume, but fresh figs for dry figs do not go by volume, nor dry figs for fresh figs by count. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, baskets of fresh and dried figs are all one kind and one gives heave and tithes from one for the other. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, my father used to take ten dried figs from the drying place for ninety fresh figs in the container.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, you consider the shriveled ones as if they had swelled and you take the baskets as they are. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say that swollen shrinks but shrunk does not swell; one would have to take large baskets for fresh figs.., taking fresh figs for dried ones. Since R. Simeon declares taking heave permissible both ways, he must disagree with the anonymous Tanna. In the next paragraph, R. Yose argues similarly that cereal in water only expands but never shrinks. . Rebbi Aḥa said to them, that is what your teacher Rebbi Ilai thought about it.
There 3:4 . The discussion is about the second part of the Mishnah, not quoted in the text: “If they were put into the rain and swelled they are impure …” The volumes indicated are the minima that may carry impurity or make their consumption a criminal offense. , we have stated: “[Profane] food in the volume of an egg that was left in the sun and shrank, similarly the volume of an olive from a carcass. 11:24–25 . , or the volume of a lentil of a crawling thing. 11:31–32 . , the volume of an olive rejected or overdue [sacrifice]. 19:7 ; overdue is sacrifice left after the allotted time has expired (one night, day and night, or two days and the night in between, as the case may be; Lev . 7:17 .) , or of fat. 7:22–26 . , are pure.” The Southerners say, only if it originally was the volume of an olive; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, even if originally it was less than the volume of an olive. There 5:1 : “All flour sacrifices are brought unleavened except the breads for a thanksgiving sacrifice ( Lev . 7:13 ) and the Two Breads [for Pentecost ( Lev . 23:17 )] which are leavened. Rebbi Meïr says, the sour dough is made from the dedicated flour. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is not of the best but he brings sour dough, puts it into the measuring vessel and fills the latter [with flour.] They said to him , that will make it deficient or redundant .” The problem is that in each case, the amount of flour necessary is prescribed by biblical law. According to R. Meïr, one takes the exact amount, and then takes from this a small amount which is moistened to make it sour; then the sour dough is returned to the original flour which is moistened and kneaded. R. Jehudah notes that this will make poor bread; he prefers real sour dough to be used in addition to the flour of the offering. He is told that in this case, when the finished product must have specified size, his procedure probably will never be exactly right. , we have stated: “They said to him, that will make it deficient or redundant.” Who said this to him? Rebbi Meïr! Sometimes the sour dough will be of high quality and it rises; if it were fine flour it would have shrunk but now, since the sour dough is of high quality it rose; you have to look at the risen [dough] as if it had shrunk; it looks deficient. Sometimes the sour dough is bad and it shrinks; if it were fine flour it would have risen but now, since the sour dough is bad, it shrinks; you have to look at the shrunken [dough] as if it had risen; it looks redundant. According to Rebbi Jeremiah, the Southerners, Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, all three say the same thing in case it is redundant. According to Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, all three say the same thing in case it is deficient. Those of Bar Patti cooked rice and had forgotten to put it in order. . The colleagues wanted to say, he should take raw [rice] corresponding to the cooked. Rebbi Yose said to them, I also am saying so because regularly it increases in volume.
MISHNAH: Also, one may give oil olives as heave for pickling olives but not pickling olives for oil olives, uncooked wine for cooked wine but not cooked wine for uncooked wine. This is the rule: All that is kilaim with another kind, one may not give as heave one for the other, not even good for bad. But all that is not kilaim with another kind, one may give the good as heave for the bad but not the bad for the good; if he gave bad for good, his heave is heave except for zĕwānîn Chapter 1, Note 1 . for wheat because they are not food. Green melons and sweet melons Chapter 1, Notes 38,39. As noted in the Halakhah, the last statement is redundant. are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning, vol. 1, #24; Responsa ascribed to Naḥmanides , #190) explains that R. Joḥanan insists that Mishnah 11:1 must read: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; the Sages permit since he improves it.” This is difficult to accept since the Yerushalmi elsewhere (e. g., Ševi‘it Chapter 8, Note 35 ) accepts Mishnah 11:1 in its original form. Therefore, it seems that R. Joḥanan sees a real inconsistency in the positions of R. Jehudah. . Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked is not recorded elsewhere; in the Tosephta (4:4 ) Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits cooked to be given for uncooked but only as second choice. R. Joḥanan declares the baraita invalid. .” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.
Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said in the name of Rebbi Hila ( Num . 18:32 ): “You should not carry sin because of it.” Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid 143b . .
Hence, something that is food is permitted are unacceptable since they are not human food. .
Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated 1:1, Note 21 . : “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine for vinegar but not from vinegar for wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one for the other.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it seems that Rebbi would agree as to biblical law. What is Rebbi’s reason? If you say so, that one may give heave of wine for vinegar, he will think that one is permitted to give vinegar for wine.
“Green melons and sweet melons Chapter 1, Notes 38,39. As noted in the Halakhah, the last statement is redundant. are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.” Rebbi Jehudah keeps to his opinion, the rabbis keep to their opinion, as we have stated ( Mishnah Kilaim 1:2 ): “Green melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim .”