תלמוד על במדבר 18:28

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary⁸“So you shall lift, also you, the heave of the Eternal.” The expression also you is superfluous; since “also” always means an addition, “also you” means a stand-in. Since he is titled “also you”, it follows that he takes the place of the person authorizing him. The same explanation is given in Terumot 1:1 (fol. 40b/c), Babli Qiddušin41b, Baba Meẓia‘ 22a.. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave⁹In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel the Gentile cannot appoint a Jew as plenipotentiary for Jewish ritual.” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him¹⁰This parallels the position of R. Isaac in Tosephta Terumot 1:15: “If a Gentile separated heave for a Jew, even with his permission, it is not heave. … Rebbi Isaac says, if a Gentile separated heave for a Jew and the owner confirms his action, it is heave.” For a Jew, once permission is given, it does not require an additional action on the part of the owner. But the Gentile’s action is not valid unless it is explicitly confirmed by the Jewish owner afterwards; the Gentile does the mechanical work and the Jew gives the separated amount the status of heave..

Everything teaches for itself and for others⁷Every verse of the Torah first is needed for its subject but then can be used to deduce rules for other cases by the standard rules of inference, either following R. Ismael or R. Aqiba., the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself⁸While very few verses speak about the obligation of the Great Heave and no details are given, the verses dealing with the heave of the tithe are many and partially contradictory. As explained in the paragraph, the general expressions are taken to refer to the Great Heave and the detailed instructions for the heave of the tithe.. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest⁹Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity.. Cahana said (Num. 18:29): “From its best, the sanctified part from it;” take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce⁶“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. but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? (Num. 18:28) “From all of your tithes,” one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce¹⁰Chapter 1, Note 206..

This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure²⁰This refers to the last part of the Mishnah. Why does the Mishnah give detailed instructions in all possible cases if the produce was pure but for impure produce only if it was profane and not also when it was tithe?? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” ²¹The disagreement between R. Yose and Cahana is in Chapter 2, Note 9. According to Rebbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest²²Since heave of the tithe makes the tithe dema‘, everything is forbidden if it is impure and the Mishnah is obvious for R. Yose since impure dema‘ cannot be given to the Cohen.. In the opinion of Cahana who said, take from its sanctifiable part, also here one should take from the sanctifiable part. Even though Cahana says there, take from its sanctifiable part, he agrees only in what he is required to give to the Cohen²³For Cahana, the essence of the obligation is taking heave, not the delivery to the Cohen. But he agrees that one should try to give it to the Cohen in usable form. Therefore, heave of the tithe should be given from another source since this is permitted; then the heave is profane and covered by the Mishnah. For Cahana, there is no question..

⁶¹This paragraph is also in Giṭṭin5:4 (fol. 47a).(Num. 18:28) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his⁶²This baraita, not found in Sifry Num., must be from the exegesis of R. Aqiba. It appears, in different form, in Babli Giṭṭin 52a.. Did we not state (Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?⁶³The Sages in that Mishnah declare heave given by one partner without the knowledge of the other as valid.” But one must be for Great Heave⁶⁴Heave given by the farmer; it is ironically called “Great” because it has no biblical minimum., the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe⁶⁵The verse quoted refers only to the heave of the tithe, the 10% given by the Levites from their tithes.? But one is for practice, the other for action⁶⁶As practice, heave given by guardians is valid; giving tithe by one partner without the knowledge of the other is discouraged.. “You’ excludes guardians; but did we not state⁶⁷Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:4. In the first case, the home owner raises the orphans without being officially appointed guardian, neither by the father nor by the court after the father’s death. Nevertheless, the person caring for the orphans becomes de facto guardian.: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell movables to feed them but not real estate⁶⁸In Giṭṭin: “He may sell slaves to feed them but not real estate.” All other sources give every guardian the right to sell real estate, under the supervision of the court, for the benefit of his wards.?” But here one deals with an adult orphan⁶⁹Since they are able to give heave for themselves, they have to do it (if they are competent.), there with an underage orphan.

⁷⁶The entire paragraph is from Demay 6:1, explained there in Notes 7–10. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple¹¹⁵The entire paragraph deals with the minor who is able to give heave but has not yet grown two pubic hairs, for R. Yose if he is able to make vows and for R. Jehudah even if he is younger.. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate¹¹⁶The statement regarding heave is in the Mishnah. The statement about sacrifices must have been in a baraita not otherwise transmitted. Since a voluntary sacrifice must be dedicated by a vow, even R. Jehudah must agree that a minor who may not make a vow cannot dedicate a sacrifice.. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate¹¹⁷In contrast to heave, where the exclusion of minors is based on a verse mentioning “every man” (cf. Note 3), sacrifices are attributed to “a human” (Lev. 1:2), including a minor.. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings¹¹⁸These are voluntary offerings that also may be brought by Gentiles. Therefore, persons not under the obligations of biblical commandments may dedicate these sacrifices. {The use of the translation “well-being offering” for שלמים does not imply that this is the correct meaning of the word.}. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood¹¹⁹Since a minor is not obligated under the law, he cannot sin and, therefore, can never bring a sin offering. It is forbidden to eat the blood of any animal (Lev. 17:10–14); transgression of the prohibition is a sin which heaven will punish with extermination if intentional but which, if committed unintentionally, may be atoned for by a sin sacrifice (or, even if intentional, by repentance and the Day of Atonement). “Sacrifice for blood” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for a sin punishable by extermination.” It is also forbidden to eat those lumps of fat of cattle, sheep, or goats which would be burned on the altar if the animal were a sacrifice (Lev. 7:23). Punishment for this offense, if documented by two witnesses, is whipping. Therefore, “sacrifice for fat” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for an unintentional simple sin.”. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease¹²⁰These are obligatory sacrifices of purification when the condition is healed, Lev. 15:14–15, 14:1–32. Without these sacrifices, the afflicted person cannot touch any dedicated food.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it¹²¹A minor cannot be obligated for anything. Since the courtyard of the Temple is reserved for sacrifices, it is forbidden to bring profane animals into it. Therefore, the priests should be required to refuse entry to such a sacrifice when brought by a minor., or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it¹²²If he has parents, the parents will bring the sacrifice for him to make sure the entire family can partake of the family offerings. Here we speak about a minor who is an orphan.? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these¹²³To present somebody else’s sacrifice for the purification of that person.? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law¹²⁴If the orphan minor owns agricultural land, the harvest before taking heave will become ṭevel (cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303) and be forbidden for consumption. The prohibition is removed by giving heave. R. Meїr, quoted above, will prevent the minor from putting his own ṭevel in order himself.! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things¹²⁵First Fruits are an obligation of the farmer (Deut. 26:1–11). In Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1 it is stated that First Fruits must be eaten by Cohanim under the rules of heave. In Mishnah 3:10, R. Jehudah states that after presentation in the Temple, First Fruits may be given to any Cohen but the rabbis require that they be eaten by the priests serving in the Temple at the moment of presentation. This means that for R. Jehudah, the status of First Fruits is that of heave which may be eaten in the entire territory of the Holy Land (called “territorial consecrated things”) but for the rabbis they are consecrated to the Temple.? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage¹²⁶A pilgrimage to the Temple at one of the festivals of pilgrimage carries with it the obligation of two sacrifices, the sacrifice of appearance, (ראיון, Deut. 16:16) which is a holocaust, and a family sacrifice, (חגיגה, Deut. 16:11,14; 12:18) which is a well-being offering.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering¹²⁷If somebody selected an animal as Passover sacrifice but then it disappeared before the holiday and another animal was dedicated, if the originally dedicated animal reappears it is brought as a well-being offering any time after the holiday (Babli Pesaḥim 70b)., may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals¹²⁸Lev. 27:32–33. Every tenth newborn in a herd of cattle or flock of sheep and goats has to be offered as a sacrifice. Tithes of produce are mentioned there in verses 30,31.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together¹²⁹In Sifry Deut. 105, this is derived from another verse as anonymous statement., then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions¹³⁰In Lev. 27:10, it is stated that one may not substitute a different animal for an unblemished animal already designated as sacrifice. The act of substitution is not invalid but sinful and causes both animals to become sacrifices. Since a minor cannot sin, it is questionable whether his act of substitution is valid.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions¹³¹The prohibition of substitution is repeated in Lev. 27:33, speaking of the tithe of animals. Since the tithe of animals is dedicated as sacrifice, the mention of the prohibition seems to be superfluous; it is taken to indicate that the rules of validity of tithes determine the rules of validity of substitutions.. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple¹³²It is sinful to sacrifice an animal outside of the Temple (Deut. 12:23). If the minor’s dedication of an animal as sacrifice is valid in biblical law, it is sinful to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. But if the dedication is valid only by rabbinic practice, the animal becomes dedicated only by its acceptance by the priests in the Temple and slaughter outside the Temple is not sinful.? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty¹³³The disagreement is quoted, in slightly changed form, in Babli Niddah 46b. In contrast to the Yerushalmi, the Babli states that RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish declare the slaughterer guilty only by rabbinic practice.. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law¹³⁴Since ṭevel comes into being by agricultural activity, not by the minor’s choice, if R. Jehudah permits the minor to give heave, he lets him remove a biblical prohibition and, therefore, gives the minor’s actions validity in biblical law.. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily¹³⁵R. Eleazar in Ševi‘it 6:1 (Note 11). Since R. Eleazar is mentioned only if R. Joḥanan disagrees, R. Joḥanan here holds that heave today is a biblical commandment, following R. Yose ben Ḥanina [loc. cit. Note 8; Seder Olam Chapter 30, cf. in the author’s edition (Northvale, N.J., 1998), pp. 257–259, x–xi.].

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food⁴³The difference between profane food and heave in matters of ritual impurity is that profane food can be impure in the first and second degrees but heave also in the third (cf. Berakhot 5, Note 19). It is stated that ṭevel, produce under the obligation of heave, cannot become impure in the third degree. and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave⁴⁴If there is a doubt that ṭevel may contain impurity in the second degree, it can no longer be a source of heave. Then the remainder of the profane food should be of third degree, i. e., pure and acceptable for heave.. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with⁴⁵Reading מנינו instead of ממנו; originally the left stroke of מ was very short. The Rome ms. has a shorter and better version: אִם פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִּין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה יְהֵא מִנְיָנוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. “If it invalidates profane food so that it cannot be made into heave, it should be counted as heave.” profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there⁴⁶Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1.: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom⁴⁷Cf. Terumot 5, Note 68. A Ṭevul Yom, a formerly severely impure person after immersion in a miqweh but before sundown, is impure in the second degree by biblical standards. Unwashed hands of an otherwise pure person are impure in the second degree by post-biblical, rabbinic and Sadducee, standards. or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there⁴⁸Here, in Mishnah 2.: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said⁴⁹Mishnah 2:3. Rav Sheshet holds that the Mishnah here is R. Aqiba’s but not the Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1., he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state⁵⁰Tosephta 1:11: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity; its ḥallah is suspended {it cannot be eaten since it may be impure, and it cannot be burned since it may be pure.} What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for ḥallah {involving third degree impurity which is inactive for profane food.} Similarly, produce for which a doubt of impurity arose before it was fully processed {before any obligation of heave} should be processed in impurity but after it was fully processed it must be processed in purity; its heave is suspended. What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for heave.”: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt⁵¹The amount is irrelevant for heave. Therefore, R. Zeïra’s argument is irrelevant.? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that⁵²He claims priority over R. Ḥiyya bar Abun.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest⁵³The priest is obligated to consume heave in purity. Since the heave in question may not be consumed, it is not destined for the priest., you may make it impure.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can⁶⁰In Terumot: “He cannot”. He can, following R. Jehudah; he cannot, following the majority. free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals⁶¹In Terumot: “Of animals”. The text following shows that the Terumot text is correct at this place.? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (Num.18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

It was stated⁸⁶A different text in Tosephta 1:7. In Sifry Num. 110 there is another version, based on Num. 15:21, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In Sifry, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows ḥallah to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, why did they say the private person one in 24 but the baker one in 48? Because the baker is generous⁸⁷This is the text of both mss.; both Tosephta mss. and R. Simson switch the places of “stingy” and “generous”. The text of the Tosephta makes better sense but the principle of lectio difficilior speaks for the Yerushalmi. It is possible that Maimonides bases himself on Sifry to avoid choosing between Talmud and Tosephta.
In the interpretation of Maimonides of the Yerushalmi text, one prescribes 1/24 for home-baked bread in the hope that at least 1/48 will be taken whereas the baker calculates his selling price including the full cost of the ḥallah which he has to give to the Cohen to keep his standing of kosher baker in the community. with his dough but the private person is stingy⁸⁶A different text in Tosephta 1:7. In Sifry Num. 110 there is another version, based on Num. 15:21, not mentioning R. Jehudah but incorporating his argument in the version: A man is generous but a woman stingy. This is the version which Maimonides follows in his Commentary. In Sifry, R. Simeon ben Ioḥai allows ḥallah to be treated as heave, with a minimum gift of 1/60. with his dough. But the Sages say, not because of this category or reason, but (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” they should be given to the priest in his status as priest⁸⁸Compare Terumot 5, Note 22.. The baker makes a large dough with enough to make a gift to the Cohen but the private person makes a small dough that would not be enough to make a gift to the Cohen⁸⁹The percentages given to the Cohen must be larger than the percentages fixed for heave since dough is perishable and ḥallah must be delivered immediately whereas heave of agricultural produce can be accumulated until it reaches the required amounts..

HALAKHAH: “If orphans rely on a property owner, etc.” ¹¹⁰From Terumot 1:1, explained in Notes 61–69. Variants are denoted by ת.(Num. 18:28) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Did we not state (Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but did we not state: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell slaves but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan.