תלמוד על במדבר 18:27

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 pure⁴For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay, 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 impossible⁵The verse quoted refers to heaves of the tithe for grain and wine. For these, it is impossible to give Great Heave (Chapter 1, Note 64) from pure for impure since Great Heave is given only from earmarked produce; it is inferred that nowhere may one give heave from pure produce on impure.
The statement that abstract principles can be transferred from impossible to possible cases is not found in the Babli but Tosaphot refer to it several times to explain the background of talmudic reasoning (Beẓah 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 itself⁶“From itself” is repeated in Num. 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.”.

Should not their⁵Speaking of deaf-mute, insane, and minor. action be proof of their intentions⁶One should allow non-verbal communication of “intention to volunteer”.? As we have stated there⁷Mishnah Makhširin 6:1: “If somebody brings his produce up to his roof because of worms and dew descended on it, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ but if he intended this {that the produce should be wetted by dew}, it is under the category of ‘when given’. If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, …”. As explained in Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141, produce is not susceptible to impurity unless it came into contact with water (or any other fluid causing impurity, cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 136) and that contact was desired, since the verse Lev. 11:38: “If produce got wetted by water … it will be impure” can also be read as: “If water was given on produce …”. It is inferred that the wetting, even if happening by a passive process, must have an active ingredient, viz., that the moistening of the produce must be agreeable to the owner.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew⁸In the Babli, Ḥulin 13a, R. Joḥanan explains that he turns the produce over in order to distribute the moisture evenly. This is professional action. R. Simson conjectures that the action envisaged by R. Ḥuna is the same as explained by R. Joḥanan.. We also have stated there⁹Mishnah Makhširin 3:8. It is explained in that Chapter that water drawn intentionally will make produce susceptible to impurity even if the contact of the produce with it was unintentional. The example described in Mishnah 8 is that of cattle whose feet have to be washed, either because the animal was used for threshing and now is all dusty, or because of some medical condition. Then the water drops clinging to the animal after it was washed in the river will make produce susceptible to impurity unless the animal was driven to the river by “a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person.” Here again, if the cattle are not only driven to the river but actively washed, intention is clearly shown.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that [his animals’] feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” When thought is mentioned in the verse¹⁰The root both of “thought”, מחשבה, and “being accounted for”, נחשב, is חשב., his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.

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 grain⁴For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay, 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.²¹Either this part of the Mishnah or the statement of R. Joḥanan is superfluous.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons²²Cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 38. or squash²³Since these are large individual fruits, the argument of R. Joḥanan is not applicable; neither does R. Joḥanan’s statement follow from the Mishnah..

¹⁰⁶This and the next paragraph are also in Yebamot 13:2 (fol. 13 c/d). It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meїr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs¹⁰⁷As a sign of puberty. Growing pubic hair is the accepted standard of the onset of puberty, the end of childhood, and the start of responsibility to keep all religious obligations (Bar Miẓwah). In all matters of biblical commandments, this standard cannot be relaxed.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.¹⁰The root both of “thought”, מחשבה, and “being accounted for”, נחשב, is חשב.” Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for a Gentile, and he may give heave¹⁰⁸Since a Gentile is not bound by the laws of the Torah (except for the commandments given to Noah), no verse requiring intent can apply to a Gentile. On the other hand, Mishnah 3:9 states that voluntary heave given by a Gentile is heave and subject to all its laws and requirements.! Rebbi Jehudah¹⁰⁹He is Rebbi Yudan. in the name of Rebbi La (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.¹¹⁰The verse refers to the heave of the tithe. The Levites will be free of guilt if they give heave of the tithe before eating their part of the tithe. The rule established here is then also transferred to the Great Heave.” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt¹¹¹His heave is purely voluntary; even if he gives heave but mishandles it, he will not incur guilt. This shows that the second argument cannot be true; in this respect, the laws of the Great Heave cannot be derived from those of the heave of the tithe since no Gentile possibly can give heave of the tithe. One is stuck with the first explanation., and he may give heave! And did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that Gentiles have no “thought”? That is for preparation, here we talk about heave¹¹²Since a Gentile cannot become impure in biblical law, he cannot make anything impure in biblical law, and his intentions are irrelevant and inactive in preparing food for impurity, cf. Notes 7,9. But since heave must be declared, we must hold that the Gentile may validly declare some of his produce to be heave. This proves that the first objection is invalid: Even though the intentions of the Gentile are never required by biblical law, his voluntary intentions are accepted for heave..

⁵⁷This and the following paragraphs are from Terumot Chapter 1, Notes 105–135, with minor differences. There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abin, Cahana in the name of the Rebbi Hila (Num.18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt, and he may give heave! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you”, (v. 26) “and you shall lift”. Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for Gentiles, and he may give heave! Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Gentiles have no “thought” whether for preparation or for heave.

The words of the Sages⁵⁸This refers to the sentence of the Mishnah starting “but the Sages say.”. Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be thought of;” (Num. 18:26) “you shall lift.” Just as thought has to be definite, so your giving heave has to be definite⁵⁹The order of the verses should be reversed: Because your heave is thought of, it must be parallel to what you would do if you lifted the heave out of the produce. Since what you lift is well defined, what you think of also must be well defined..

There¹⁷⁴Mishnah 4:6., we have stated: “One who counts is praiseworthy, he who measures is better, and he who weighs is the best of the three.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, here for the Great Heave, there for the heave of the tithe¹⁷⁵Which is called “tithe of the tithe”, one tenth of one tenth.. We have stated so¹⁷⁶Babli Beẓah 13b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gimel”), Giṭṭin 30b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gamla”), Bekhorot 58b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gomel”), Menaḥot 54b (“Abba Eleazar ben Gomel”).: “Eliezer ben Gimel says, from where that one does not give heave by measurement, weight, or count? The verse says (Num. 18:27): ‘Your heave will be thought of for you’. You give heave by thought, you do not give heave by measurement, weight, or count. Just as this is for the Great Heave, so it is for the heave of the tithe¹⁷⁷The later Sages, Tannaїm and Amoraїm, disagree with this last statement even though it agrees better with the verse..”

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product²⁰⁶The verse speaks of heave of the tithe and implies that the merit of heave of the tithe which accrues for the Levite is identical with that of the Israel giving heave from the threshing floor. This implies that the Israel gives only from the threshing floor, when all agricultural work connected with the harvest is complete.. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it²⁰⁷While heave and tithes are due only after cleaning up the threshed grain, using unthreshed ears for a regular meal would show that the ears are the finished product and subject to heave and tithes. But untithed ears may be eaten as a snack. Here, it is stated that giving heave and first tithe in any form declares the product as finished. If the tithe is tithe, then it is ṭevel for heave of the tithe and may not be eaten unless that heave is taken.. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian²⁰⁸A Galilean Amora of the fifth generation, student of R. Jonah, possibly Ἀσίων. in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there²⁰⁹Mishnah Bikkurim 2:5.: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce¹⁴⁸Mishnah Ḥallah 1:9. Since heave is given by estimate, it must be given from a well-defined lot. But heave of the tithe is exactly ten percent; it may be given anywhere if the volume, weight, or number of the produce to be tithed has been determined beforehand., like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing²¹⁰The end of threshing, when the threshed grain has been collected and assembled in neat heaps.? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law²¹¹The ears never were threshed, much less smoothed..

What is Rebbi Jonah’s reason? Because it already became impure when it was prepared by the grape harvest¹³⁹As explained before, this is R. Yose’s argument.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? They were pure by biblical standards. You are the one who decided that they be impure¹⁴⁰This is R. Jonah’s argument. There is no biblical impurity for Gentiles; the laws of impurity are uniquely formulated for Jews. The imputation of impurity (permanent and irrevocable) for Gentiles is rabbinical (Babli 36b). The exclusion of Gentiles from the Temple precinct is not because of impurity but because of their being disqualified.. The strength of Rebbi Yose is the following, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila¹⁴¹The source of this statement (in another context) is Ḥallah3:2, Note 53. It should be logical that one may (free)¹⁴²This text makes no sense either by itself nor in this context. Ṭevel is produce under the obligation of heave from which heave was not yet taken; it may not be consumed. By all standards a person is not only permitted but obligated to free his ṭevel by separating the heave. The text in Ḥallah correctly reads: “a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards.” The main point of the argument is given there but omitted here. Heave not only must be consumed in purity but it is stated in Num. 18:8 that the priests have a special duty to guard heave from impurity. It follows that this duty does not apply to ṭevel, which therefore may be allowed to become impure; disagreeing with the hypothesis underlying the Mishnah.
The quote here refers to a different subject. Heave given to Aaron in his quality of priest is pure heave for which he can exercise his duty to watch it and consume it in purity. But once produce has incurred even a doubt of impurity it can no longer be consumed by the Cohen; this eliminates not only the duty of guarding it but all rules made to safeguard it. If the rules of purity no longer can be observed there remain no restrictions on harvesting and pressing grapes with a Gentile. his ṭevel as it is written, you should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest¹⁴³Num. 18:27.. You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest. But here, since you cannot give it to Aaron the priest in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.