תלמוד ירושלמי

1MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine. 13:18 ) which biblically is forbidden for all usufruct. , and vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery, and heart-removed skins. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. 106:26 ; it describes all pagan sacrifices. . It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness.

2HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. 8:5 (Notes 82–111). At places the text here is a reformulation, not a direct copy, of the text there; though it is not excluded that both might represent the same original by two very different paths of copying. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine) conditum . . The bitter, vermouth wine . And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia]; it is preferred since no Amora “R. Joshua” without patronymic is known. , Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned], the one in parenthesis is the text here. , Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita ? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine.”

38:5 Notes 91–94. Rebbi Immi had guests. He said to them, if my cooked wine had not been left uncovered, would I not have served you? Rebbi Vivian said, bring it and we shall drink. He answered, he who wants to die should go and die in his own house.

4Bar Yudani had uncovered spice wine. He went and asked the rabbis who forbade it. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet, are not under the rules of being uncovered. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: About one which consists of one to three parts ground [spices].

5They asked before Rebbi Abbahu, what is the rule for uncovered cooked [wine]? He told them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum , Greek κάροινον, wine which by cooking has lost one third of its volume. Since the alcohol-producing bacteria die at 13% alcohol by volume, if the volume has shrunk by one third certainly all alcohol had evaporated and no alcohol was left in the fluid. and you are asking me this? They asked Rebbi Isaac and he forbade it to them. Then Rebbi Abbahu remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.

6(Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar.), the corresponding sentence reads: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was entering and leaving it is permitted. This means that one may assume that no snake came out of its hole to eat from the food or drink the fluid if there was constant traffic in the room. The sentence really is needed to justify R. Abba bar Mamal’s ruling in the sentence after the next. Possibly it was deleted to indicate that the passage here should not be considered an exact copy of the text in Terumot . Terumot 8:5 Note 95 . The barrel of Ben Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, who told him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was sleeping it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, if he was sleeping it is forbidden. In is reasonable [to infer] that Rebbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rebbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rebbi Ḥanina.

78:5 Notes 96–101 ; the text is somewhat reformulated. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul understands it from the following occurrence. It happened that a woman loved to do good deeds but her husband hated good deeds. There came a poor man and she gave him to eat. While he was eating she noticed her husband; she made him climb and hid him in the upper floor. She returned to her husband who ate and fell asleep. There came a snake and ate from what was before him; her husband awoke from his sleep and wanted to eat. The one in the upper floor started to talk. That means if he was sleeping it is permitted. It was used to it. But is it not forbidden because of being alone? For they committed adultery, blood is on their hands . 23:37 . . Since he is not suspected of one he is not suspected of the other81b ). .

88:5 Notes 104–105 . A pious person happened to be insistent in the matter of uncovered [drinks]; he was smitten with a fever. They saw him preaching on the Day of Atonement with a flask of water in his hand.

98:5 Notes 102–103 . Although in the first part the Terumot text appears as the original, from here on the order of texts makes more sense. The only connection the present paragraph has with the others is the mention of the Day of Atonement (missing in Terumot ) which was introduced in the preceding one (and continues in the next one with the original theme.) It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once on the eve of the day of Atonement before nightfall he drank a great deal of wine and became drunk. He went to the roof, fell down, and died. The dogs started to lick his blood; people came to ask Rebbi Ḥanina how to remove him from before them. He told them, it is written22:30 . , holy people you shall be to Me; torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs . This one robbed the dogs and fed the Jews carcasses and torn meat. Let them alone, they are eating from their own.

108:5 Notes 106–112 . These are the last paragraphs having a parallel there. A person’s amphora of wine became uncovered on the eve of the Great Fast. He went to pour it out; another person said to him, bring it and I shall drink it. He told him, it was uncovered. He answered, does not the Master of the Day exist? He had not finished tasting when he started shaking.

11Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills. Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one is not asked about uncovered [drinks]. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira; as master of the ruling he asked him.

12Rebbi Ze`ira was dozing; he was sitting and eating in the evening. The light went out; he put his hand on the toman(a hemina , half a sextarius ) of wine. Sine the room was dark he held that the presence of a human in the room would not deter a snake from drinking the wine. Babli 30a . . They lit the light and found a snakelet like a hair curled around it. He said to it, evil one, was I not careful about you?

13Rebbi Immi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful with: It is forbidden to put coins in one’s mouth, a bread under the armpit, a dish under one’s bed, and to stick a knife in an etrog , or a knife into a radish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, all sweat that exudes from a human is deadly poison except the sweat of the face.

14Rebbi Yannai said, if you bit something off, you bit off soot. If you lose, you lose a pearl. If anybody asked Rebbi Jonathan he told him: Am I the guarantor of your life? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if you sold yourself for the games; as a gladiator. , you would sell yourself for an excessive price; but here for a very cheap price.

1MISHNAH: Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs containing an Israel’s wine are forbidden and their prohibition is one of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that their prohibition is not one of usufruct.

2HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs,” etc. “Rough Gentile wine skins are permitted; tarred ones are forbidden. If a Gentile made it and insulated it while a Jew was watching, one may fill it with wine without worry.” Should one not be afraid that possibly he made a libation? He will not usually make a libation in repugnant circumstances. Then even if no Jew was watching? I say, maybe he switched.

3“Gentile jugs, new ones are permitted even tarred; old are forbidden even if not tarred.” Here you say tarred are permitted and there you say tarred are prohibited. Rebbi Abbahu said, I investigated tarring of jugs; they do not use vinegar while tarring.

4Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: If somebody puts wine which was forbidden to drink but permitted to use into jugs, the jugs become like the wine. If he removed it and put new wine into them, the wine becomes like the jugs. If he removed it and put new wine into them, the wine is forbidden but the jugs permitted. Why “forbidden to drink but permitted to use”? Because of Rebbi Meïr who said, forbidden to drink and for use.

5Rebbi Abba said, when Rebbi Aqiba went to the tar workers, they came and asked him, how does one purify Gentiles’ jugs? From the following I taught them, since they are permitted if not tarred, if they were tarred but the pitch was shaved off not so much more? But when I came to my colleagues they told me that they are absorbing because of the pitch.

6“If the Gentile filled it with water, the Jew fills it with water; then he fills it with wine without worry. It the Gentile filled it with fish fluid is a sauce in which pieces of fish are preserved. or fish sauce; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper. the Jew may fill it with wine. If the Gentile filled it with wine, the Jew fills it with fish fluid or fish sauce, then he fills it with wine without worry.”

7Rebbi Joḥanan went to meet Rebbi Yudan the Prince at Acco. They came and asked him, how does one purify jugs? He said, from the following I taught them, since after the Gentile filled it with fish fluid or fish sauce the Jew fills it with wine. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he puts them into the fire not so much more? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he strips off the tarring not so much more? Do they stand this? If they stand it, they stand.

8Untarred jugs, Rebbi Assi said, they are forbidden, Rebbi Immi said, they are permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi questioned: do we say that a tankard does not absorb? Rebbi Abba said, Rav Sheshet asked, could we say that a vessel for urine does not absorb?

9Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One fills Gentiles’ jugs with water three days from time to time. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi asked, does one do this? Rebbi Yose from Malḥa brought a case before Rebbi Mana. He told him, that is what happened; he answered that it is permitted. Is that to start? He told him, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah went to Goblana; he instructed about large cups“flat dish or saucer; libation bowl” or Greek ποτήριον (cup, receptacle for offerings in temples; cup in the Eucharist) (Kohut). that one fills them with water three days from time to time.

10An Aramean’s leather bag split; the Jew received it into his. The case came before the rabbis who said, one fills them with water three days from time to time.

11Rebbi Yasa went to Tyre. He saw them tarring small leather bags and Jews bought them. He asked, who permitted you? They asked Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Mani, who prohibited it.

1MISHNAH: Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, moist they are forbidden, dry permitted.

2HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat. But did we not state, “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern.

3There we have stated:9:5 . “And so it is with new solid matter of olives; but old one is pure.” What is new? Within twelve months. Old, after twelve months.

1MISHNAH: Fish sauce; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper. , cheese, and theriac., φάρμακα “medicines made from poisonous beasts (θηρίον)”. It is possible however that ותרייקי is an error for בתנייקי “Bithynian”, which in the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. characterizes the kind of cheese which if made by Gentiles is forbidden for usufruct; cf. Note 431 . of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.

2HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.11:1 ( ת , Notes 11–23). However, the first paragraph is a reformulation and explanation of that text as noted by S. Lieberman ( Tosefta kiFshutah Terumot p. 454). The second paragraph also belongs to Terumot 2:5 ( תּ , Notes 118–119). The quote refers to a baraita similar to Tosephta Terumot 9:6 . According to Rebbi one puts wine into muries to improve its taste. This is a legitimate use of wine as food; therefore the Cohen may use his heave wine, sanctified food which has to be consumed in purity as a religious duty, to improve his muries. On the other hand, since the improved taste is noticeable, the entire muries now must be eaten under the rules of heave. R. Eleazar holds that wine is used in muries only to clean it from contaminations. To use heave wine for this purpose is sinful since it destroys sanctified drink. But if heave wine was used in this illegitimate way, it was destroyed and therefore lost its sanctity. The muries is profane and may be eaten by lay people in impurity. “Wine in muries , Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] texts. state: “From a professional 4:13 . The Leiden ms. in Terumot reads המין “trustworthy”, which in editio princeps became an unintelligible חמין “hot”. The reading of ג , אמון may be read either as אָמוֹן “craftsman” with the Leiden ms. here or אֵמוּן “trustworthiness” with the text in Terumot . it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him carries a rabbinic certification that no wine was used in its production. .

3Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. One says because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers 11:1: “One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; R. Jehudah permits since he improves it.” But some people do not want to drink alcohol-free cooked wine. The problem really is whether the vintner is permitted to cook his wine before he gave heave since (a) with the diminution in volume of the wine he diminishes the volume of heave to be taken and (b) not every Cohen may be willing to accept cooked heave wine. . We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, it was not inverted, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

1MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver20). . He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering. 1:9 ). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct. 7:8 ) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine , or for your (f.) friends are better than wine . 1:2 . Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.” ? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better . He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils . 1:3 . As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you . Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male. The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant . 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth , it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine. R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel ; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil. As mentioned in Note 306 , any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67 ). .

2HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most] calves there Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b . are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

31:1 (60a ll. 39–54, ב ) and a Genizah text ( Yerushalmi Fragments , pp. 156–157, בּ ) of the same. The source clearly is the Beṣah text even though the argument is from Avodah zarah and the reference to Beṣah is a side remark. “Gentile’s stomach content” naturally means “stomach content of animal slaughtered by a Gentile.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship text seems better: Does this (i. e., the prohibition of Gentile rennet) follow R. Eliezer (whom practice does not follow in general) since it treats Gentile rennet as more problematic than the one derived from a carcass? Since here practice is said to follow R. Eliezer, the tradition seems questionable; one has to search for parallel traditions either to confirm or to reject. ? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] and prohibit as torn only the victims of predator attacks as described by the verse, Ex. 22:30 .) And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside1:1 which states that the House of Shammai permit the use on the holiday of an egg laid on that day while the House of Hillel forbid it. The problem is to understand the position of the House of Hillel since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday ( Ex . 12:16 ). According to the Babli and one opinion in the Yerushalmi the prohibition applies only to eggs laid by chickens raised to produce eggs. Then the mother was not food at the start of the holiday. While the egg is food according to everybody, for the House of Hillel it cannot change its character from non-food to food on the holiday. Then the question is raised why milk which is prohibited as food before being ingested by a ruminant becomes permitted by the animal’s stomach. In this question, the revised ruling in matters of rennet would agree with the stance of the House of Shammai. But the answer is that the two cases cannot be compared; the stomach contents of an animal never were part of the animal and do not have the latter’s status. . It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

4“Because they curdle it,” etc. 1:7 (Notes 182-191) and Sanhedrin 11:6 (Notes 54-57); Midrash Cant. 1(18). The Geniza fragment ends here on line 2. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi [Joḥanan]: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are (more pleasant than) [pleasant like] the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine 7:10 ; Babli 35a . . Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friends are better than wine 1:7 . . Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Bar Pazi: You may know that the words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon. 1:2 . did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake . 10:8 . .

5Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe, since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach 2:6 . . And it is written, I shall preach to you for wine and liquor 2:11 . . The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two seals, persons authorized to use the imperial mail. to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, do not believe him. About the other he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle . 13:2 . . But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you . 17:11 . .

6Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because most calves there Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b . are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters an animal for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

7What means “burns it”? He slurps it. 1(17) גמיע. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in a dirty cup. This implies that one who drinks from a dirty cup neither benefits nor commits larceny.

8Why did he not tell him? Because they prohibited it recently and Rebbi Ismael was young.

9Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject, he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah. 25:34 remains undecided in this sense. Parallel sources are Babli Yoma 52a/b , Gen. rabba 80(5 ) (Theodor-Albeck #957/958, Sokoloff Geniza Fragments p. 170), Midrash Cant . 1(18), Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Amaleq 1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai Epstein-Melamed p. 121, Tanḥuma Bešallaḥ 26.The list itself is attributed in most sources to Issy ben Jehudah. [A discussion in principle about this subject is found in ש. קוגוט, המקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות, י־ם תשנד; מ. ברויאר, מקראות שאין להם הכרע, לשוננו נח (תשנה) 189־199.] , which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well 4:7 . They must have read הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִ֔יב שְׂאֵ֕ת וְאִם֙ לֹא תֵיטִ֔יב but also in the masoretic text הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת there is a stop between תֵּיטִיב֙ and שְׂאֵ֔ת. . For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong 49:6–7 . It is a question whether to read one or two sentences. . Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill . 17:9 . . On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers . 25:34 . . The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore . 31:16 . . Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended . 34:7 . Most translations follow the masoretic punctuation in choosing the first alternative but the German translation by Torczyner et al . (Berlin 1934) which opts for the second. . Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth . 1:2 was chosen because its first part, quoted now, tells R. Ismael to be silent since a person who is kissed on his mouth cannot speak at that time. The first part clearly refers to a male; nevertheless R. Ismael had a point reading the second part as addressing a female since the sentence switches from third to second person, possibly indicating a change of speaker. . Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command . 4:14 . Here starts a rather defective Genizah fragment (Ginzberg pp. 276–277.) . “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone.

10Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Lambs for your clothing; the price of a field are rams . 27:26 . . It is written “suppressings”. How is this? If the students are young, suppress before them the secrets of the Torah. If they grew and became like rams, reveal to them the secrets of the Torah. This lends support to what Rebbi Simoen ben Ioḥai stated: And these are the laws which you shall put before them . 21:1 . . Just as this putting is not revealed to everybody. 21–22 are not to be told to Gentiles nor applied to their suits. so you do have permission to immerse yourself in words of the Torah only before legitimate people.

1MISHNAH: The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct: Milk which the Gentile milked when no Jew was seeing him, bread, their oil, and anything preserved by cooking. Rebbi and his court permitted oil. Preserves in which usually wine is used, where wine might have been added. The wine is forbidden but there is no danger that it might have been used for pagan rituals. , and vinegar, and pieces of triton , and fish sauce not containing a whole fish, and hallec ) prepared from small fish” (Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary). , and a lump of asa foetida , and salqonarit salt, spiced salt (mentioned by Pliny xxxi,87 and in Diocletian’s price edict. A recipe is given by Apicius.) Kohut proposes salcenarium Medieval Latin “used for pickling”. Also consider sal candidum “white salt” (E. G.). ; these are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct:

2HALAKHAH: “The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden,” etc. 8:5 (Notes 135–142 ) and Šabbat 1:(3d line 2). The text in Terumot is a copy of the text in Šabbat ; the text here is somewhat different. Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Rebbi Abba (son of) [in the name of] Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison given between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and were [not] disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the great assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and were not disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. It was stated thus 7:17 . : “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.”

3Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals. It was stated so: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew sits with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.”

48:5 (Notes 57–62), Ma`aser Šeni 3:1 (Notes 2–3, מ ), and Šabbat 1 (3c l. 55, ש ). The Genizah text here, and the texts in Ma`aser Šeni and Šabbat are clearly copies of one and the same original; the text in Ševi`it is slightly different in wording but identical in meaning. Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan. Bread is of the practices of obfuscation. [Rebbi Yose said, so I asked before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What means “of the practices of obfuscation?] Do I say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rebbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, Ma`aser Šeni , and Šabbat add: “and they obfuscated about it and forbade it.” But the illegible space in ג is not sufficient for this addition; one has to assume that it never was in the Avodah zarah text. ? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store “bread merchant”. ; but one does not do this.

51 (3c line 65). The Geniza fragment (ג) ends at the mention of Rav. Another fragment, in much better shape, edited by J. N. Epstein [ Tarbiz 3(1932) 15-26 (G)] starts at the second mention of Deut. 2:28. They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat , etc2:28 . In the Babli, 37b , a statement of R. Joḥanan. The Babli (38a ) negates a biblical base for the prohibition of Gentile cooking. . As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין., and similarly in the Tosephta, it appears asקפריסין “capers”. and קובטיות 5) proposes copta قُباط “fig preserve”. This agrees well with the quote in the Babli since, as stated later also here, all preserves made from fruit which also is eaten raw are not under the prohibition of Gentile cooking. The only problem is that the next sentence implies that the word describes a dried fruit or vegetable which can be returned more or less to its original state but soaking. , roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav51a , Bava qamma 11a , Yebamot 12b . Also Yerushalmi Nedarim 6:1 (39c l. 44). : Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah . (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking text nor the Babli. It also contradicts the insertion in the Šabbat text ( Note 368 ). Either it is spurious or the text here disagrees with the text there. .) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them ? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him) text and G. with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior p. 4, remark about R. Jonathan. came to [his] text. town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

6I, 3d line 16 ff., ש . While the sentence order there differs from here, the fact that G while following the sentence order of L very often follows the formulation of ש indicates that the two texts are essentially the same. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful , etc. 1:8 . The verse does not seem to mention olive oil. As the Babli explains (36a ), the argument is from the continuation, that he would not defile himself by the king’s solid food and the wine of his drinks , where the plural drinks refers both to wine (whose prohibition is generally accepted) and oil (where Daniel’s action rather is an act of personal piety.) In any case, the prohibition of Gentile olive oil never was considered to have any biblical basis. .

7And who permitted it? Rebbi permitted it and his court36a . . At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents7:3, Notes 49–64 . The essence of the controversy is whether a divorce document subject to a certain condition is only valid after the condition has been satisfied or is valid immediately but not actionable unless the condition be satisfied. The simplest example is that of a sick childless man who wants to shield his wife from levirate marriage (or prevent her from marrying his brother) by writing a bill of divorce valid if he should die from his disease. If he stipulates that divorce be “from today if I shall die”, the divorce is unquestionably valid. If he omits “from today” then for Rebbi it is valid, for the rabbis it is invalid since a dead person cannot divorce. , oil, and a sole3:4, Notes 93–98 . The “sole” is the result of a miscarriage where no features are recognizable in the aborted fetus. For the rabbis, the woman is subject to all disabilities of a woman who gave birth to a male and a female ( Lev . 12:1–8 ), for Rebbi and his court only if human features were recognizable. . They called him “the court which permitted oil.” Any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. (Note 54) which thereby is shown to be the source of the preceding sentences, and refer to Mishnah Giṭtin 7:10 about a man who gave his wife a bill of divorce valid if he should not return within 12 months, and notice was received of his death. Does she have to wait the full 12 months or not? May she be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, she is forbidden to remarry.

8Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed about it I, 3c l.37, Babli 17b ) it must refer to the situation there. The exact meaning of “King’s mountain” as a geographical entity has not been determined. . Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel said, true! Rav did not accept on himself to eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder8:6, Note 64 . . He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Simlai the Southerner. He told him, he said it in the name of himself, not in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

9Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”1:5 . ? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

10Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead24b s. v . אתא. . A man went to wash a piece of meat7:3 (50c l. 47). Sokoloff in his Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic accepts also Jastrow’s explanation “an object on which the meat was hung” but this seems to be excluded by the context. in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place95a–b . .

11What is the status of their lupines? Rebbi forbids, Ganiba permits. Rebbi said, I am an Elder and he is an Elder. It came to my mind to forbid; it was his opinion to permit. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum went to Tyre and permitted their lupines. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre and found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He returned to Rebbi Joḥanan who asked him, what case came to your hands? He told him, I found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He asked him, did you not hit him? He answered, he is an important personality and knows how to sweeten the waters of the Great Sea. He told him, no, my son. He knows how to compute the waters; when the waters come together to acclaim their Creator on Ps. 93:4. they sweeten themselves. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, he starts to speak his disgrace and tells his praise! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a difficult computation; Rebbi Zakkai of Alexandria knows it. He said, if you want, you may learn it from him.

12What is the rule for their parboiled [food]? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah to the hot springs of Gadara and permitted their parboiled [food]. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, what is the difference between parboiled and lupines? Rebbi Yose said, parboiled is missing action by fire; lupines are not missing action by fire.

13Ḥawarnas as “hash” (Jastrow) on basis of Arabic رطس “to hit somebody with one’s hand”; it may be somewhat better to rewrite חוורנס as Babylonian הרסנא “sauce made out of ground sardines” (Jastrow) since Palestinian ח often corresponds to Babylonian ה. Also compare Latin arvina “grease, fat,” and moretum , Greek μυρτοτός, a country dish (E. G.). is not forbidden because of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah . Martisa as “hash” (Jastrow) on basis of Arabic رطس “to hit somebody with one’s hand”; it may be somewhat better to rewrite חוורנס as Babylonian הרסנא “sauce made out of ground sardines” (Jastrow) since Palestinian ח often corresponds to Babylonian ה. Also compare Latin arvina “grease, fat,” and moretum , Greek μυρτοτός, a country dish (E. G.). is not forbidden because of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah .

1MISHNAH: The following are permitted to eat: Milk which a Gentile milked while a Jew saw him, and honey, and broken grapes (even though they drip they do not prepare for impurity.. 11:38 ). Juice is treated as water in this respect. But the verse reads, if water is poured on vegetables , this is read to imply that contact with water makes vegetables susceptible to impurity only if it was poured intentionally or at least if the wetting was agreeable to the owner ( Sifra Šemini Pereq 11). Therefore juice which flows out of table grapes does not prepare for impurity since it is lost, but juice flowing from wine grapes does prepare for impurity since it is not lost and eases the work of wine pressing. ) Preserves in which usually wine or vinegar is not used, and uncut triton , and fish sauce containing a whole fish, and a leaf of asa foetida , and rolled olives: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25. ; Rebbi Yose says, the pitted ones are forbidden. Locusts from the basket are forbidden, from storage permitted; similarly for heave.

2HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back. Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back 20a . .

3What is alec? Rav said, soltanit is forbidden because it is a small fish caught together with non-kosher fish. Cf. Latin solea “sole” (also the fish). . Rebbi Joḥanan said, alec and cut-up triton follow the same rules. Rebbi Ze`ira, Cahana bar Taḥlifa, Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: Its mucus is forbidden because of admixture from prohibited fish. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This you say at a place were water is not running. But in running water no impure fish associates with pure fish. The Sea of Genezareth is similar to running water. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only at times when the fish bites. Samuel said, ḥafitha 1:4 it is noted that it is a jumping fish. Arabic حٍفث is a large non poisonous snake. one judges according to its shell. If it produces mucus it is permitted, otherwise forbidden.

4What is uncut triton? Any where heads and spines exist. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that on a ship of the House of Rebbi there were more than 300 amphoras. Rebbi checked them all out and found only one where heads and spines were found. He permitted all of them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi asked, would it not be reasonable that one amphora be permitted but the other amphoras be forbidden? But it was by a pretext. 10:7, Notes 91–94 . The common topic are subterfuges to stretch permissions over the reasonable limit. (A sale) one reads “cheeses”, ג for ז, a not infrequent misreading. While the principle of R. Abba bar Zavda refers to public property, here he applied it to loads on a common carrier. This is a subterfuge. was mixed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda who said to him, the property of the public cannot be forbidden. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Isaac asked: Is not Cajus Lycus written on these documents, and you say, by a pretext?

5Ulla the leatherworker. stated before Rebbi Dosa, an impure fish has live births, a pure fish lays eggs 7b . . He started again and stated, fish intestines and fish innards are eaten only upon certification by an expert. He told him, change your statement! This one state or that one. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, do not change your statement. They are finished only upon being laid. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, if one tells you, I salted them, he may be believed Nathan bar Abba said before Samuel, I know how to distinguish between fetuses of impure fish and fetuses of pure fish. The fetuses of impure fish are spherical, the fetuses of pure fish are elongated. He showed him a salpe , - ae , “stock-fish”. ; he asked him, what is its status? He answered, impure. He told him, not only am I aggravated that you said impure of what is pure but at the end you will say pure of what is impure.

6It was stated: One buys fish intestines and fish innards only upon certification by an expert. One buys dark blue wool only upon certification by an expert, which by tradition must be dyed with the blood of a marine snail which can easily be counterfeit by (much cheaper) indigo, and therefore needs certification. (In modern Hebrew תכלת is light blue but classically very dark blue.) 42b . . One buys Bithynian. princeps בית היניקאי, Erfurt ms. ובית הינייקי, Vienna ms. missing. The Vienna text is the only one agreeing with the Mishnah as printed in the Yerushalmi editions. cheese only upon certification by an expert. One buys wine in Syria only upon certification by an expert. One buys meat without a mark only upon certification by an expert. But all one may eat at a person’s who is not an expert without worry.

7Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Tanḥum in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If one sent asa foetida he is trustworthy. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joṣhua ben Levi: If one sent dark blue wool he is trustworthy. The lad of Levi of Ṣanbar was selling produce. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The slave of a trustworthy person is trustworthy. Germanus the slave of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince had dark blue wool. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The slave of an expert is like an expert.

8“And salqonarit salt.” Some Tannaïm state, black one is forbidden but white permitted. But some Tannaïm state, white one is forbidden but black permitted. He who said black one is forbidden, because one puts a black crawling thing in it. He who said white one is forbidden, because one puts a white crawling thing in it. Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Gamliel, both are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥanania said, we had a neighbor who was mixing it with pig fat.

9Coverings are the same as protuberances 8:2 it is explained that סְכָכוֹת refers to trees giving shade and פְּרָעוֹת to bushes growing out of a stone wall. Both transmit “tent” impurity. . Veiled is the same as hulled 6:6: On a Sabbath, a Jewish woman in Arabia may walk in the public domain veiled and in Persia hulled. . Roofs are the same as covers 8:9 . An oven ( furnus ) may become impure if according to R. Jehudah it has a roof (στέγη), according to Rabban Gamliel if it has a platform (שְׂפָיוֹת). . Cups are the same as grooves 2:5 : Two black hairs growing in the same groove disqualify a red cow; R. Jehudah says in the same cup. . A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces 22:1 : A table or tripod (portable pieces of furniture which may become impure if whole) which were damaged but were covered with a marble top (which cannot become impure) still may become impure if the cover excludes a place for putting there cups (majority opinion) or pieces (R. Jehudah). . Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25. .

10“The pitted are forbidden.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a variety and they put vinegar on them to be able to remove their pits.

1MISHNAH: All statues are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod, or a bird, or a globe. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything.

2HALAKHAH: “All statues are prohibited,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because they are worshipped in the great fortification of Rome twice in a Sabbatical period. Then at a place where they are worshipped they should be forbidden, at a place where they are not worshipped they should be permitted. Rebbi Yose said, since they became forbidden at one place, their kind becomes forbidden anywhere.

3Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are of kings, according to everybody they are forbidden. If it is certain that they are of rulers, according to everybody they are permitted. But where we hold is if it is indeterminate. Rebbi Meïr says, indeterminate they are of kings but the rabbis say, indeterminate they are of rulers.

4Ashian the woodworker in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: why are pictures forbidden? Because one burns incense before them at the time they are hung. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may look at them when they are taken down. What is the reason? You may look when the evildoers are being destroyed . 34:37. . One may not look at inscriptions under figures or under pictures on the Sabbath 149a. Since the inscription explains what the picture is all about, reading it is for non-religious information which is forbidden on the Sabbath. . Not only this, but even on a weekday one does not look at pictures. What is the reason? Do not turn to idols . 19:4 . , do not turn to worship them; Rebbi Jehudah says, do not turn actually to see them.

5When Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai expired, the pictures were covered by bast mats. rabba 9(9); cf. also Babli Moˋed qatan 25b. They covered all icons along the route of the funeral procession by mats. (In the Babli, the icons turned into mats.) . Just as he did not see them during his lifetime, so he should not see them in his death. But do they know anything 18a. ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the only difference between us and the just is speech. 30(3) [ed. Buber Note 6]; Pesiqta rabbati 2 (ed. Friedmann Note 17), 12 (Note 4). The name tradition changes from source to source. . Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the dead person hears his eulogy as in a dream. Rebbi Ashian said, the dead person hears his eulogy as in a dream. Why was he called “Naḥum the most holy man”? because he never in his life looked at the form on a coin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a. . Why was he called “our holy teacher”? Because he never looked at his circumcision 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a. .

625b. When Rebbi Aḥa expired, a star was seen at high noon. When Rebbi Ḥanan expired, the statues were bent. When Rebbi Joḥanan expired, the pictures were bent. They said, there was no picture beauty like his 84a. . When Rebbi Ḥanina from Hauran expired, Lake Tiberias was split. They said, when he was going to intercalate, the lake was split before him. When Rav Hoshaia expired, the shame 3:7 Note 259 ), possibly government run. It is possible that here one should read קוֹלוּמן columna “a pillar” (commentary Gilyon Efraim .) of Tiberias fell down. When Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv expired, 70 thresholds of Galilean houses were uprooted. They said, these were kept in place by his merit.

71:1 (Note 139 ) and twice in Gen . rabba . The different Yerushalmi versions are compared in Appendix 2 of M. Sokoloff, The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba , Jerusalem 1982. ( Babli Ketubot 17a .) When Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac expired, the cedars of the Land of Israel were uprooted. They said that he was taking branches and danced while singing before brides. The rabbis were complaining about him. Rebbi Zeˋira said to them, let him alone, the old man does not know what he is doing. When he expired, fire came from Heaven and separated between his bier and the public; there were three hours of thunder and lightning in the world. They showed what this branch did for the old man. There came a disembodied voice and said, woe that Samuel bar Rav Isaac, the doer of good deeds, has expired.

8When Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥalfuta expired, the water pipes drew blood in Laodicea. They said, because he devoted his life to circumcisions.

9When Rebbi Abbahu expired, the pillars of Caesarea were crying. The Samaritans said, they only are making a joyful noise 6a .) . The Jews told them, do the outsiders know what sound the insiders make? When Rebbi Abbahu expired, they had thirteen rivers of balsamum flowing before him. He asked them. rabba 63(3 ). A similar story is in the Babli, Taˋanit 25a , referring to R. Eleazar. , for whom are these? They told him, they are yours. He said to them, all of this is for Abbahu, and I said . in vain I labored . 49:4 . Gen . rabba 63(3 ). , etc.

10. rabba 63(3 ), an enlarged version. The Holy One, praise to Him, shows to the just their rewards in this world; their soul is satisfied and they go to sleep. [A parable] of a king who gave a dinner and pictured all kinds of dishes on a chart. When the guests entered they saw it, they were satiated and went to sleep.

11. rabba 63(4 ), 92(2 ), Ex . rabba 22(3 ), Midrash Psalms 5(11 ). Zavdai ben Levai, and Rebbi Yose bar Petrus, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said three verses when they expired. One of them said, for this every pious one should pray to You . 32:6 . etc. And one said, all who rely on You will enjoy . 5:12 . etc. And one said, how great is Your bounty which You did hide for those who fear You . 31:20 . etc.

123:7, Soṭah 9:17, 9:13–14 (Notes 212–218), Tosephta Soṭah 13:3–4; parallels in the Babli Berakhot 57a, Soṭah 48b, Sanhedrin 11a. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Elders assembled in the upper story of House Gadya at Jericho when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Hillel the Elder. They looked at Samuel Minor. Then the Elders assembled in the upper story at Jabneh when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Samuel Minor. They looked at Eliezer ben Hyrcanos. They were happy that their opinion coincided with that of the Holy Spirit.

13One of the Patriarch’s court expired. The burial cave received him but people’s lives were endangered. Rebbi Yose came and held a funeral oration, “happy the man who leaves the world in peace.” When Rebbi Yasa died, the sacred fountain (New Greek καστέλλιον), expression used by Vitruvius for the water container on top of a water tower, fits Tosephta Miqwaot 4:6 but not this passage. Fortification in the Yerushalmi always appears as castra . - orum , and has nothing to do with pagan worship. The word here seems to be κασταλία “a sacred fountain”. Compare Latin castalius , “holy” (E. G.). of Tiberias fell down and those of the Patriarch’s court were happy. Rebbi Zeˋira told them, it is not comparable. There people were in danger, here nobody was in danger. There no pagan worship was uprooted, here pagan worship was uprooted.

149:17 ( ס ) Notes 283–284. The first paragraph is slightly reformulated, the second more radically except for the last sentence. Probably one should read bar Pazi instead of Rebbi Pazi. According to Horaiot 3:7 (Note 329 ) the family bar Pazi already was related to the Patriarchate but had no learned members. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rebbi Eliezer died, he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw.

1MISHNAH: If one finds shards of vessels they are permitted. If one finds the figure of a hand or of a foot these are forbidden because similar ones are worshipped.

2HALAKHAH: “If one finds shards of vessels,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because most of them come from three-legged tables. Then also figures of a hand or figures of a foot? There is a difference since similar ones are worshipped.

363b . It is written. 17:30 . : The people from Babylon made Sukkot Benot , the chicken and its young, and the people of Kuta made the Nergal , the foot of Jacob and the foot of Joseph is considered a prefix leaving a root רגל “foot” which in turn is taken of the source of גלל “because of” in analogy to עקב “heel, in consequence of”. , I divined that the Eternal blessed me for your sake n. 30:12. ; the Eternal blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake n. 39:5. . The people of Ḥamma made the Ashima , a sheep, as you say, the Cohen shall atone for him by the asham ram v. 19:22. G quotes 5:16 instead. In both cases there is acoustic similarity between asham and ashima . . The Awim made the Nibḥan , a dog, and the Tartaq , a donkey. And the Sepharwites burned their sons in fire [to Adrammelekh and Annamelekh the gods of Sepharwaim] , peacock, - i , m ., is “a precious multi-colored stone”. and pheasant, also phasiana , - ae , f. (Edict. Diocl.). According to myth, it is metamorphosed Itis, a son of Tereus. He was killed by his mother and served to his father, then changed into a pheasant. .

4An idol which was broken, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is permitted. Where do we hold? If in the future he would return it to its vessel, everybody agrees it is forbidden. If in the future he will not return it to its vessel, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we hold if it is not indicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not indicated is as if he would return it to its vessel; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not indicated is as if he would not return it to its vessel. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is if he would return it to its vessel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi [Joḥanan]: Is it not written, therefore the priests of Dagon and all visitors to Dagon’s temple will not step on Dagon’s threshold . 5:5 . Since it does not mention Dagon’s hands and head, it proves that once a statue is broken it is not worshipped any longer by pagans. In the Babli the same verse serves to buttress R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish. ? He told him, this teaches that they honored the threshold more than Dagon. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the peoples of the world made one threshold; Israel made many thresholds; what is the reason? I shall visit on [any] who skips over the threshold [on that day] . 1:9 . .

5If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant and forbidden for any use under any circumstance ( Deut . 13:18 ). For him the only way an idol or its parts can become useable for a Jew is that a Gentile (a pagan) breaks it. The Babli (49b ) explains Samuel’s position away. .

6Rebbi Abin in the name of (Rebbi Simeon) [Samuel]: This means if they are without base. But if they have a base, I am saying they come from shards.

1MISHNAH: If somebody finds vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon, the form of a dragon, he should bring them to the Dead Sea. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, on honored ones. 13:18 . it is forbidden, on contemptible ones permitted. Rebbi Yose said, he grinds them and disperses them into the wind or throws them into the Sea. They told him, but then it becomes fertilizer and it was said, nothing of the ban should cling to your hand .

2HALAKHAH: “If somebody finds vessels,” etc. They stated only “vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon,” therefore not any of the other planets. They only stated “dragon”, therefore not any snakes. What is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben (Azzai) [Eleazar] says, what is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. “If it is smooth it is permitted. If one finds a dragon in the form of a something crawling it is forbidden. Something crawling and on it a dragon, he takes the crawling thing and throws away the dragon.

3Samuel said, a cup which serves as base for a dragon is forbidden, a dragon which serves as base for a cup is permitted. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Fragments of a dragon are permitted. If it was a whole dragon and broke, it is forbidden.But did the fragments not come from a whole one? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav: So it is: If one saw them bowing down before a whole dragon and then it was broken, it is forbidden.

4Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are worshipped, even the contemptible ones are forbidden. If it is certain that they are not worshipped, even the honored ones are permitted. But we must deal with the indeterminate case. Rebbi Crispus said, those cups. r . 81(3) quotes R. Joḥanan to the effect that garments may be forbidden as pagan (based on Gen . 35:2 ). belong to the contemptible category, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba had a pitcher. and the (worth) [fortune] of Rome. was pictured on it. He came to ask Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, since water swims on top of it, it is a contemptible one. A drinking cup is contemptible since one immerses it in water. In the days of Rebbi Joḥanan they started painting on walls and he did not protest against it. [In the days of Rebbi Abun they started depicting by mosaics and he did not protest against it.]

5Rebbi Yose objected to the rabbis, is it not written: your sin which you had made , the calf . 9:21 . ? They told him, this teaches that he intended to examine them in the way one examines deviant wives: he strewed it on the surface of the water . 32:20 . As usual, the argument is from the part of the verse which is not quoted, viz ., he let the Children of Israel drink . The deviant wife has to drink water mixed with dust from the floor of the Sanctaury, Num . 5:11–31 . .He said to them, is it not written, and also Maacah , king Asa’s mother , he removed from power . 15:13 . ? They told him, is there proof from there? Asa cut down etc. He told them, he beat the bronze serpent to pieces . 18:4 . . Was this an object of worship? Did not Moses make it? This teaches that Israel was erring after it until Hezekias came and removed it.

6One verse says, they abandoned their idols; David and his men carried them away . 5:21 . The verse implies that the idols were a valuable part of the booty. According to the Mishnah the idols should have been brought to the Dead Sea, not to Hebron. . But another verse says, David gave orders and they were burned in the.fire . 14:12 , another report about the same event. . Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta and the rabbis. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalafta says, what was of metal, David and his men carried them away . And what was of wood, David gave orders and they were burned in the fire . But the rabbis say, what Itai from Gat annulled, David and his men carried them away . And what he did not annul, David gave orders and they were burned in fire . How does Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta confirm David and his men carried them away ? They took them by their rims.

1MISHNAH: Proclos ben Ploslos asked Rabban Gamliel in Acco when he was taking a bath in the Bath of Aphrodite. He said to him, it is written in your Torah, nothing banned should stick to your hand . 13:18 . : why are you bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite? He said to him, one does not answer in the bath 2:3 Notes 116–119 . . When he left he told him, I did not come into her domain, she came into my domain. One does not say, the bath was built as adornment for Aphrodite but one says, Aphrodite was made as adornment of the bath. Another explanation. If one gave you lots of money, would you enter your temple naked, after an emission, or urinating before it? But this one stands over the sewer and everybody is urinating in its presence. It only says their gods . 12:30 ; the verse which is the basis of Mishnah 6. ; what is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as a divinity is not forbidden.

2HALAKHAH: “Proclos ben Ploslos asked,” etc. Where do we hold? If he asked him about practice in the bath he should have answered; if he did not ask him about practice in the bath he should not have answered. 3:3 (6a l.51, ש ), Babli Šabbat 40b. As Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. As when Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to bathe with Rebbi Meïr, he asked him, may one rinse? He told him, it is forbidden, they went to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath. It is forbidden to take a hot bath in water which was heated, but not in water which is naturally hot. But then one has to be careful not to rinse oneself outside the water flowing from the source since water spilled on the earth outside would fill in depressions in the ground, which is prohibited work. . May one dry himself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say “Amen” at a dirty place? He told him, it is forbidden, and it is forbidden that I told you that it is forbidden. It was found stated, one asks: “One does not ask.” This supports Rav and seems to be the original version. Unfortunately, ג is damaged at this passage. about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, he asked him about practice in the bath but it is not done to answer in the bath. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he asked him about practice in the bath but the steam in the bath is bad for the teeth. The colleagues, Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name if Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He answered him in an evasive answer, for he could have replied about Baal Peˋor whose worship only consists in exposure and defecation 7:12 . . What about it? What is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as divinity is not forbidden.

1MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said. 7:25 . If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted. , do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself . Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains . 12:2 . , the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills , the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry. 12:2 reads: You shall certainly destroy all the places where the peoples from whom you will inherit worshipped their gods , on high mountains , and hills , and under each sprightly tree . This explains clearly that not the place is forbidden but the idol and its temple to be found there. .

2HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says. 7:25 . If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted. , do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself . And one verse says. 29:16 . , silver and gold which is with them . If on them why with them , and if with them why on them ? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them.

3Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Anything which one introduced inside the lattice work he made forbidden; e. g., money pouches. Rebbi Yasa said, we had a note that (return) [this] of Rebbi Hoshaia disagreed with Rebbi Yannai, but it is not so; it supports it. Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them; this excludes money pouches. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even water and salt. Salt to rub and water to rinse. And this is “even”? But e. g., water and salt.

47:4, Notes 46–48 ( כ ). An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and] 7:4 , 5 . If a person grows vegetables or grain in his vineyard, everything becomes forbidden for usufruct. But if he causes such a growth on another person’s land, R. Meïr holds that the crop is forbidden and the owner of the land has to sue the culprit for damages; R. Yose and R. Simeon hold on the authority of R. Aqiba that “nobody can sanctify anything which is not his.” In our case, anybody who worships an animal or an object which is his, made it forbidden for usufruct for himself and everybody else. But if the object was not his property, for R. Yose and R. Simeon it cannot become forbidden for anybody. Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not) become forbidden for Heaven is misleading. The relevant Mishnah is Temurah 6:1 where it is stated that an animal used for idolatry (or bestiality) is unfit as sacrifice, irrespective of ownership. For sacrifices there is no dispute between R. Meïr and R. Yose. Babli Temurah 28a . .

5Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even his fine flour becomes forbidden and another person’s is permitted.) It now is stated that cut and milled produce will only be forbidden if used illegitimately by its owner, not by any third person. . Is this following him who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden; did he say that they do not disagree about something which is not alive and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya comes to tell you that the baraita refers to living things? If they disagree about something which is not alive; therefore a living thing is forbidden. Then something which is not alive should be forbidden a fortiori . This is that you should not say as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven

6If somebody worshipped an egg, Gesammelte Werke Bd. 4, Basel 1954. Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say: Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny .57:6. . The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden.57:6. ; 9:3 Notes 170–174 , Taˋaniot 1:3 (64b 1.30); its source seems to be Gen . rabba 13(19) on Gen . 2:6 . The different name traditions are noted in the Notes to Berakhot . as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I , the Eternal , am watching over it and water it in moments . It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

71:8, Notes 200–208, ע. The scribe of L wrote only the first and last few words and then: “one continues in Avodah zarah Chapter 3, Halakhah 6, ‘if Gentiles worship’, to the end.” The text was then added by the first corrector in a somewhat shoddy way, from a source different from the text here. The full text is in the Rome Zeraˋim ms. An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow: “he fenced in”, confirmed by the Rome text. This text can be understood since it mentions the walnut which was planted at the beginning of the first paragraph, not the second as in the text here. If a walnut tree was planted to close an opening in the lattice work, this certainly makes it forbidden as an Ashera . It is hard to see how to tow anything using an egg; the difference between the two texts is that between גרר and גרר. Neither of the two expressions makes much sense if applied to an egg. the idol.

8If an ‘orlah walnut was planted or an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Yasa said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. According to Cahana the original prohibition has not disappeared, according to R. Joḥanan the situation is parallel to that of heave grain (restricted as food to pure Cohanim) which was used as seed grain; the crop needs only token redemption (Mishnah Terumot 9:4). . Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, did not Rebbi [Joḥanan], missing here. say it is permitted, does he not redeem it as from the time it is sown; the redemption is symbolic and can be effected by a token payment. ? There came Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now tree the redemption money has to be destroyed. ; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

9“Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you,” etc. We have stated אוֹבִין. Some are stating אוֹבִיל. He who says אוֹבִין “we understand.” But he who says אוֹבִיל “we bring.. ”

10Rebbi Borqai stated before Rebbi Mana: This teaches that the Canaanites did not leave any mountain or hill where they did not worship. But do we not understand to say, anything alive, while not forbidden for a private person, is forbidden for Heaven? How could the Temple have been built? By the order of a prophet; David went up following the word of Gad which he had said by the Hand of the Eternal . 21:19 , slightly misquoted. .