Talmud su Levitico 19:78

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya⁴Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22)⁵“Do not go over your vineyard a second time, nor pick up the single berries of your vineyard; to the poor and the sojourner relinquish them.” Why does it say “relinquish,” and not “give”? “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere⁶Any meaning of עזב must conform with this paradigm. is for the poor and not for the rich.

HALAKHAH: It is written: (Lev. 19:19) “you should not sow your field kilaim;” I could think, even two kinds of wheat or two kinds of barley. “You should not breed your animals kilaim;” I could think, even black on white cattle, or white on black cattle. “And kilaim cloth, שעטנז, should not be worn by you;” I could think, even two kinds of wool or two kinds of linen. It was made explicit about garments, (Deut. 22:11) “do not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together.” Just as for garments where I forbade you two kinds, neither one is of the genus of the other, so kilaim that I forbade you at any place, neither one is of the genus of the other.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.”⁷In Sifry Deut. 232, the text is somewhat more complete: “I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; from where do we know that one may not cover oneself with it (in a blanket)?” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back⁸A peddler’s chest full of textiles to peddle to Gentiles.; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava⁹A Galilean Amora of the fifth generation, student of R. Jonah. Since R. Zeïra was R. Joḥanan’s student, it is clear that the second name in the list must be “R. Jonah”. In the Babylonian tradition, this is a Tannaïtic statement (Tosephta Kilaim 5:13)., Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax¹⁰Shell silk, also called “byssus”, from threads, excreted by shells under water, which harden when exposed to air, used already in antiquity., even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”¹¹All others carry the name of the animal from which they come as an epithet..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree²It says “a food tree”, not “a fruit tree” as in the Creation story (Gen. 1:11–12); it must be intended for food; a fruit tree grown for its timber is exempt. A similar argument in Sifra Qedošim Parsha 3(2)..”

HALAKHAH: It is written (Ps. 24:1): “The Eternal’s are the earth and what is in it, the dry land and its inhabitants.” He who profits from the world commits larceny⁴Since he uses God’s property, not his own. until good deeds will permit him⁵The obligation to say Grace after a meal is spelled out in Deut. 8:10. The obligation to recite blessings before one eats is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Since Grace is only treated in the next Chapter, one has to find here Biblical allusions to this duty and (in the next section) to the duty of reciting a benediction before fulfilling specified commandments.
The verse appears in the Babli (35a) in the name of Samuel. R. Levi compares the verse (Ps. 115:16) “Heaven is the Eternal’s heaven but the earth He gave to mankind”, explaining that before a benediction everything is the Eternal’s property but after a benediction it becomes human property. While Rebbi Levi is a Galilean teacher, the Yerushalmi rejects his combination since in the third paragraph earthly enjoyment is only “as if one ate from one’s own”. The text of the Yerushalmi is from Tosephta Berakhot 4:1 which is identical with the Talmudic text except that there it says “until all good deeds will permit him”, meaning that only if the preparation of food is completely within the commandments of the Torah then the last step of the preparation, the recitation of the benediction, will allow the food to be given to man as his own.. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction⁶This argument is very difficult to understand and the commentators either chose to ignore it or give very incongruous explanations. The best explanation is that of R. Eliahu Fulda who in his Yerushalmi edition suppresses the word פֶּן “lest”. One would have to assume that Rebbi Abbahu’s text did not have the word but that later scribes added it from memory. By it the negative implication of the verse (which speaks about growing different kinds of plants in a vineyard) are changed to a positive one which now should be translated: “That you shall sanctify the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard.” Since the sanctity is not that of sacrifices, the sanctity may be removed by redemption (Lev. 27:11). However, there can be no monetary redemption of anything not explicitly authorized in the Torah. Hence, the redemption is non-monetary and is the traditional praise given to God in benedictions. [The simple sense of the verse is that produce grown in a vineyard becomes forbidden for private use as if it were dedicated for sacrifice.]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master⁷The translation follows the Biblical text, not the text written here., my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation⁸The verse is extremely hard to understand; the next two interpretations have nothing to do with the topic on hand; they are only added to indicate translations that might be considered if בל is not a negation but a verb form derived from בלל, which may mean either “to give food” (Jud. 19:24) or, more frequently, “mixed with fluid, moistened.”: “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand.⁹Taking בל as shorthand for בִּלְעֲדֵי “without”.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise¹⁰This is also quoted in the Babli (35a); the source of both Talmudim is Sifra on the verse. The verse speaks of the fruits of a vineyard in its fourth year when the grapes can be used for the first time after having been forbidden for the first three years. This is only a hint for any other food..

HALAKHAH: “The following separate regarding peah.” Because it has been said (Lev. 19:9, 23:22): “Your field⁸In the singular, cf. Sifra Qedošim 1:22.,” that he should not give from one field for another.

If, however, he undertakes [to become a proselyte], they take him down to the place of immersion, cover him in water up to his middle,⁶The place of nakedness. and tell him some of the details of the precepts. [He is informed that he is accepted only] on condition that he will give gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field and tithes.⁷Cf. Lev. 19, 9; Deut. 24, 19; Num. 18, 26ff.; Deut. 14, 22ff.; XXVI, 12ff.

Some⁶Sifra Qedošim 2(5–7). want to understand it from the verse (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “abandon⁷Lev. 19:10: “Do not glean in your vineyard, neither collect single berries, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” Lev. 23:22: “When you are harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest, neither collect the gleanings of your harvest, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” The implication is that peah has to be given before any further processing.,” put before them grain in its straw, fenugreek in bundles, dates in brooms⁸Dates grow in bunches that sit on the trunk; if the bunch is cut at the trunk and the dates are taken, the remainder may be used as a broom.. I might think that this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “them⁹Only those items that are described by the term “harvest”..” What argument do you have to include these and to exclude those? After the verse included, it excluded. I include those that are not dangerous and exclude those that are dangerous¹⁰“Connected” here means “still hanging on the tree.” Then the plucking cannot be described as “harvest”. Since this derivation by inclusion and exclusion follows the method of R. Ismael, the preceding paragraph must represent the opinion of R. Aqiba..

It was stated: The gifts to the poor standing on the field about which the poor do not care⁸They did not come to collect them at the appointed times, or they did not collect them when they did come. belong to the proprietor. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, may a person give the name of peah to take for himself⁹Since it was stated in Halakhah 1:6 that even a farmer who qualifies as poor has to abandon his peah to the poor in general, how can he then be authorized to take it for himself?? Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: (Lev. 19:10,22) “Abandon them to the poor and the stranger,” not ravens and bats¹⁰It is better that food be used for humans who care about it. Since the obligation of these gifts to the poor is to “abandon” them, not to “give” them, the farmer is not required to give the value of peah, gleanings, etc., to the treasury of charities..

Rebbi Mana understood it²⁵That the Sages and R. Jehudah do not agree about the weight of a person’s disclaimer as against two witnesses to his actions. from the following²⁶Mishnah Keritut 3:1.: “They told him, if he wishes, he says that he did it intentionally.” What can he say for an assigned slave girl²⁷Lev. 19:20–22, the case of a man sleeping with a slave girl assigned as a future wife to another free man. As long as the girl is not totally freed, she cannot marry the man to whom she is assigned. Therefore, her relations with another man are not adultery. A reparation offering is required from the man. This is one of the few cases in which a sacrifice is possible for deliberate sin.? In error²⁸If in the dark he thought that she was his wife., he is obligated; intentionally²⁹This is the case treated by the verse. If he denies the accusation by two witnesses, one cannot take his denial as assertion that he did it but already had remedied the situation., he is obligated! He can tell him, I touched her but did not finish³⁰This is a first explanation: A sacrifice is due only if there was an ejaculation of semen (v. 20). If he took the slave girl to bed but stopped before there was an ejaculation, no sacrifice is due., or as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I was forced to it by the spell she put on me³¹He disclaims responsibility by reason of temporary insanity caused by the girl’s charms. This is enough to support his disclaimer against even two witnesses.. For a nazir³²Exposed to the impurity of the dead; the case of the Mishnah. what can you say? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated; forced, he is obligated! “Suddenly”, to include in error, “suddenly”, to include intentionally³³This is proof that the nazir must bring his sacrifices even if forced. The reference is to Num. 6:9. In all other sources, Sifry Num. 28 [= Num. rabba 10(31)], Babli Keritut 9a, the inference is from the double expression “if a person should die near him suddenly,unexpectedly …” “Suddenly” is taken to refer to accidental impurity, “unexpectedly” to outside force (Sifry) or outside force and intention (Babli).. “There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now³⁴Since the vow of nezirut could have been formulated in a way that eliminates the possibility of a sacrifice for impurity, the testimony of the witnesses can be explained away.. (“There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now.)³⁵A case of dittography. What do you have in case of an oath³⁶If two witnesses tell a person that he owes a sacrifice because he has violated an oath imposed on him by other people (Lev. 5:1,4). How can he be believed if he denies the accusation?? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated³⁷Mishnah Keritut 2:2.! A condition may apply to words³⁸If he undertakes anything, he may add conditions. If others (usually a court of law) impose an oath on him, he swears according to their understanding, rather than his own.; there is no condition for oaths! It follows what Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah: For error, its sacrifice, for intention, its sacrifice. But if he said, I thought that this was no oath, he is free³⁹Here, there may be a case in which no sacrifice can be demanded if the interested party denies their obligation.. Therefore, all these subjects cannot be stated, but the following can be stated⁴⁰In all cases discussed so far, the Sages cannot disagree with R. Jehudah; that is possible only in the cases dealt with in the next paragraph..

It was stated: The gifts to the poor standing on the field about which the poor do not care⁸They did not come to collect them at the appointed times, or they did not collect them when they did come. belong to the proprietor. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, may a person give the name of peah to take for himself⁹Since it was stated in Halakhah 1:6 that even a farmer who qualifies as poor has to abandon his peah to the poor in general, how can he then be authorized to take it for himself?? Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: (Lev. 19:10,22) “Abandon them to the poor and the stranger,” not ravens and bats¹⁰It is better that food be used for humans who care about it. Since the obligation of these gifts to the poor is to “abandon” them, not to “give” them, the farmer is not required to give the value of peah, gleanings, etc., to the treasury of charities..

Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.

Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc⁶Since for him the Mishnah has no biblical basis; the cessation of commerce with idolators either is rabbinic or an old popular custom. The entire sermon is reproduced in Yalqut Šim`oni Prophets§542.? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal⁷Is. 7:6. The tradition that Ṭabeal is a place rather than a personal name was accepted by the Medieval commentators of Prophets. According to Rashi the name is coded; one has to replace letter nby n+/-11; then טבאל becomes רַמְלֵא, a city founded after the Arab conquest.. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me⁸1S. 2:28.. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people⁹1K. 12:31; quoted in the Babli, Qiddušin75b, in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning¹⁰Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day¹¹Lev. 19:6.; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter¹⁰Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter³Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it¹²Deut. 23:22., but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them^3,Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.¹³But it is not necessary to fulfill one’s pledge. The reason of the Northern Kingdom’s apostasy is traced to the cost and onerous rules of Torah practice.. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand¹⁴Hos. 4:5.. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk¹⁵He claimed that his mental faculties were slightly impaired.. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping.¹⁶Hos. 4:6. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration¹⁶Hos. 4:6.. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges¹⁷Hos.4:7. All of Talmudic literature assumes that the legal system imagined for late Hasmonean rule was that of the Davidic kingdom.. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found¹⁸Deut. 21:1. This sermon derives הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 not from חלה “to be sick” but from חלל “to be perforated”.. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat^14,Hos. 4:5.¹⁹Deriving הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 from חול “to be profane”.; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan²⁰1K. 12:29..

What is touching¹¹In the Babli, 55b, the statement of Samuel is formulated more graphically, that touching the female genital by the male must necessarily make a small indentation which is the act of acquisition. The opinion of R. Joḥanan is quoted in rather confusing three ways.? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That the finger should be seen between the lips. Rebbi Joḥanan said, until the gland enters. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the gland has entered that is completion of intercourse. What are we dealing with¹²The two statements of R. Joḥanan must refer to two different categories of laws.? If about incest prohibitions, He made the one who touches equal to him who finishes¹³In the list of punishments for sexual offenses, “touching” is mentioned as the offense in Lev. 20:18–19.. If for a bound slave girl¹⁴Lev. 19:20–22. The quasi adultery of a man with a slave girl which was somehow betrothed before she was manumitted is punishable only if there was ejaculation. {Tosaphot, Babli 55b, s. v. אינו, interprets the Babli as making the intercourse punishable in the moment an ejaculation leading to a pregnancy was possible even if none actually occured. It is impossible to read this into the text of the Yerushalmi.}, until he ejaculates, since Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, said in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen”, until he ejaculates. But we must deal with a widow for the High Priest. When he touched her, he became guilty for desecrating her. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because “he shall not desecrate his semen in his people.¹⁵Lev. 21:15. Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a, it is noted that the language of Lev. 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow.”

If so¹⁹If zĕwānîn can be a cash crop, they should be kilaim with anything that is not their own kind., should they not be kilaim with wheat? Rebbi Jonah said, they are a kind of wheat but the fruits went astray²⁰This certainly fits blight, but Lolium also belongs to the same family (gramineae) as wheat and rye.. As it was stated: (Lev. 19:29) “The Land should not go whoring,” from here that produce may go astray.

Ashian the woodworker in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: why are pictures forbidden¹⁰Flat pictures of pagan deities or pagan subjects, since the Second Commandment forbids only three-dimensional forms. Greek εἰκόνιον, “portrait”.? 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 destroyed¹¹Ps. 34:37.. One may not look at inscriptions under figures or under pictures on the Sabbath¹²Babli Šabbat 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 idols¹³Lev. 19:4., do not turn to worship them; Rebbi Jehudah says, do not tum actually to see them.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing³³Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox³⁴The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover³⁵Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again. cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said³⁶Deut. 22:9. For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written³⁷Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written³⁸Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]³⁹An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms., a prohibition to remove it is not written⁴⁰Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable..

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for anything that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what is rightfully hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for anything that is not his? In addition, from what Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to retract, he may retract. Rebbi Yose stood near Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”³⁹Lev. 19:36: “Your hîn shall be just”. The הִין is a liquid measure (half a se’ah). But since biblical כֵּן “yes” became rabbinic הֵן, the verse is interpreted to mean that in money matters any “yes” has to be honest. The formal argument is that the verse already mentioned the ephah as correct measure; therefore the smaller hîn requires symbolic interpretation. [This learned pun is in the name of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah in the Babli, Baba meṣiʻa 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7)].? He said to him, at the moment he said it, it was a just “yes”.

He who cohabits with a maidservant is liable to the penalty for transgressing fourteen negative commands and also to the penalty of kareth at the hand of Heaven, viz.: Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind;⁶⁸Lev. 19, 19. The list given here is according to the text of GRA. Cf. Sanh. 82a (Sonc. ed., pp. 543f.). Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed;⁶⁹ibid. Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together;⁷⁰ibid. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed;⁷¹Deut. 22, 9. Thou shalt not plough [with an ox and an ass together];⁷²ibid. 10. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff;⁷³ibid. 11. All these laws forbid ‘mixtures’. Thou shalt not commit adultery;⁷⁴Ex. 20, 13. Thou shalt not covet;⁷⁵ibid. 14. And thou shalt not lie with any beast;⁷⁶Lev. 18, 23. Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God;⁷⁷ibid. 21. also one on account of [laws concerning] a non-Jewish maidservant, a harlot, a niddah and a heathen woman. And one punishment of kareth, as it is stated, May the Lord cut off to the man that doeth this him that calleth and him that answereth out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.⁷⁸Mal. 2, 12. If he was a lay-Israelite and profaned his seed with a maidservant or a heathen woman, he will have no ‘awakening’⁷⁹i.e. instruction. ‘Awakening’ and ‘responding’ correspond in the Heb. to him that calleth and him that answereth in Mal. 2, 12. among the Sages and no ‘responding’ among the disciples. If he was a kohen, he will not have a son that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree²²The etrog is identified as the “fruit of the splendid tree” (Lev. 23:40) to be taken in procession on the holiday of Tabernacles. If ‘orlah did apply, then the fruits of the young tree would not be usable. The question presupposes that the etrog is edible, the fruit of Citrus medica cedrata, cf. Ma‘serot 1, Note 86, but it is not intended to be eaten. was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation²³The “four kinds”, etrog, palm fronds, myrtle, and willow twigs, should be acquired for the holiday, not taken from what is already obligated for religious purposes; in the case of the etrog this refers to fruits of Second Tithe brought to Jerusalem for the holiday.? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere²⁴Since “religious obligations are not for usufruct”, a shofar can be used for blowing even if it is forbidden for usufruct.. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this²⁵Using the etrog for Tabernacles instead as food. and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum²⁶An olive tree planted with the idea that its fruits should be used exclusively to produce oil for the candelabrum in the Temple. By the preceding argument, it is subject to the rules of ‘orlah.; then both are biblical.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁴⁷It is a general principle of hermeneutics in both Talmudim that for every prohibition one verse has to explain what is forbidden and another verse, often at a different place, has to spell out the punishment. If the latter verse refers to several prohibitions at once, the number of sins committed in one act (the number of required cleansing sacrifices if the sin was inadvertent) is counted by the number of prohibitions, not by the number of punishments enumerated separately. In the Babli (Makkot 14b, Keritut 3a), this is a matter of dispute.. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.⁴⁸Ex. 30:32, speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it⁴⁹Ex. 30:33: “A man who would compound its likeness or who would apply it on an outside person {who is not a priest} will be extirpated from his people.” There are only two prohibitions since the “human” of v. 32 is defined as “not a priest” in v. 33.”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus⁵⁰A principle spelled out many times in the Babli, cf. Makkot 5b, 14a, 17a; Sanhedrin 54a.. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man⁵¹Lev. 21:9. “A Cohen man’s daughter if she is desecrated by whoring with her father, shall be burned in fire;” cf. Babli Sanhedrin 76.”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning⁵²It was determined earlier that the prohibition of 20:14 of descendents or progenitors in the direct line applies only if one of the women is married to the man. For priests, this is extended also to extramarital children.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter⁵³Lev. 19:29: “Do not desecrate your daughter to cause her to whore.” This interpretation is quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, in the name of R. Abun’s father and there is only one of several alternative interpretations..”

(Lev. 19:19) “[Kilaim cloth] shall not come upon you.” You are permitted to spread it out under you but the Sages said one should not do it lest one thread should be over his flesh⁴⁹Sifra Qedošim Pereq 4(18), Babli Beẓah 14b. The Babli is much more restrictive and decrees that one may not sit on a kilaim carpet even if the latter is covered by ten layers of unobjectionable material..

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover⁶⁸Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between. is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned⁸¹Lev. 19:8., the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned²⁰Deut. 14:21.. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox³⁴The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct⁸²Since it says, its meat may not be eaten(Ex. 21:18) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation⁸³Ex. 12:19., [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]⁸⁴Lev. 19:8.; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat⁸⁵Lev. 7:25. of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice⁸⁶The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19. following your opinion⁸⁷In Mishnah Temurah 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent⁸⁸And practice does not follow him..

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

HALAKHAH: “Domestic animal with domestic animal, etc.” I might think one cannot put a male next to a female nor a female next to a male; the verse says (Lev. 19:19) “do not cause your domestic animals to copulate”. You are only forbidden to cause to copulate but you may put a male next to a female or a female next to a male. But what did he actually do³⁸In order to commit a crime, the perpetrator has to perform a forbidden action. But if the male animal acts by itself, is not put on the female by a human, nothing has been perpetrated. {Explanation by R. Eliahu Fulda, following the Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 91a. R. Moses Margalit and R. Eliahu Wilna explain: What is the crime committed by a person who causes animals to copulate by bringing the male bodily onto the female? The answer is that while ejaculation by the male is an automatic reaction, it fulfills the expectations of the human and therefore is induced by the human’s action.}? When it ejaculates it does so by itself.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:21) “When you plant,” this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land⁵⁴Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3(2).. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts⁵⁵Since a tree planted a day before Israel crossed the Jordan is permanently exempt..

It was stated: (Lev. 19:9) “The gathering of your harvest,” not the gathering of your plucking⁵²By hand.. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who collects⁵²By hand. ears for his dough in any quantity⁵³In the Babli this expression would mean “a minimal quantity.” In the Yerushalmi it means “a quantity of indeterminate size.” is free from peah. Rebbi Eleazar says, even with a sickle⁵⁴It is not a harvest unless some is collected for storage, not if everything is used for immediate consumption.. Rebbi Yose⁵⁵The Amora who in the Yerushalmi is known usually as R. Yasa and in the Babli as R. Assi. said, only if he left some standing. Did we not state (Tosephta Peah 1:10): “If he had five vines and he harvested them and brought them into his house⁵⁶Not to the winepress to make wine or to his roof to make raisins., he is free from fallen berries⁵⁷Berries fallen from the grape bunches during harvest, which may not be taken by the harvesters but must be left for the poor., from orlah, from the fourth year⁵⁸Orlah is the yield of the first three years of a newly planted tree that is forbidden for all use; the yield of the fourth year must be eaten in Jerusalem (or it may be redeemed and the money brought to Jerusalem) if there is a Temple. These obligations do not depend on the harvest; hence, they cannot belong to the text. Even though this text is found in both manuscripts of the Yerushalmi, it is not in the Tosephta where the reading is: he is free from fallen berries, forgotten sheaves, and peah. This is also the text implied by both Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David (הלכות מתנות עניים 4:27) and the mention of peah is implied by the discussion here. The corruption must have crept into a manuscript from which both the Leyden and the Rome manuscripts are derived.
The Tosephta does not mention a remainder; this seems to contradict R. Yasa., but he is obligated for gleanings⁵⁹Single berries which do not grow either in a bunch or in a row. They may not be harvested and must be left for the poor. Since they belong to the poor from the moment of their formation, the manner of harvesting is irrelevant.. Rebbi Yudan said, one for those which are fully ripe⁶⁰Then any collecting is harvesting and a remnant is necessary so that the obligation of peah may be fulfilled., one for those which are not fully ripe⁶¹Then peah is not due.. Rebbi Yose⁶²Ben Zabida, the late Amora. said, you may even say that both deal with the case that they are fully ripe, or both deal with the case that they are not fully ripe. There⁶³Without remainder. if he wanted to eat them as grapes, here⁶⁴A remainder is required for wine grapes. if he wanted to make them into wine, he may do so. This is informed from that and that is informed from this. This is informed from that, if he wants to eat them⁶⁵Ears of grain. Eaten as a snack directly from the field. as rubbed ears [he may do so] even if he did not leave a remainder. That is informed from this, if he wants to drink them as wine⁶⁶Even if the grapes are squeezed by hand to produce grape juice in the house. [he may do so] only if he left a remainder.

“If he planted for the public benefit, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts”. The rabbis seem inconsistent. There⁶²Mishnah Nega‘im 12:4; cf. Babli Yoma 12a., they say: “Jerusalem and outside the Land cannot become impure by skin disease,” but here, they say so⁶³As explained in the next Note, Jerusalem is public property and any tree planted there should be exempt as planted for public use.! There (Lev. 14:35) “the owner of the house comes”⁶⁴The actual verse referred to is Lev. 14:34: “I shall put skin disease on a house on the Land of your inheritance.” This excludes all houses in territory not distributed to the tribes; Jerusalem was conquered by David as capital not belonging to any particular tribe. Sifra Meẓora‘ Parašah 5 proves from the verse that (a) the rules did not apply before the distribution of the Land, (b) a house built on poles, not being a “house on the Land” is also not subject to the rules, (c) houses in Jerusalem (and certainly outside the Land) are excluded., excluding Jerusalem which was not distributed among the tribes. But here, (Lev. 19:21) “when you plant,” in any way.

How for saplings? It was stated¹⁸⁶Tosephta Ševi`it2:3. The following text essentially is from Ševi`it2:6, Notes 49–57; Babli 9b.: “If somebody planted, sank¹⁸⁷One takes a branch of a vine, buries must of it in the ground, only the end is above ground. This will develop into a new vine; the buried branch will develop roots. The new vine is counted as newly planted; its fruits are forbidden during the first three years., or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year¹⁸⁸For the prohibition of orlah and the obligation to redeem the fruits in the fourth year; Lev. 19:23–24. and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits of this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And in year [the fourth]¹⁸⁹The text in brackets was added by the corrector in order to make clear which verse is quoted; it is not in Ševi`it. Since the next sentence makes it clear which verse is intended, it is unnecessary.. How do you understand this? Rebbi Ze`ira said, three years they shall be uncircumcised¹⁹⁰Lev. 19:23–24. The fourth year may be, or must be, included in the three years of orlah. This applies only to the special case considered here (interpretation of Maimonides) or in all cases (R. Zeraḥia Hallevi, R. Nissim Gerondi)., and in year. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is understandable if he planted it 30 days before the New Year¹⁹¹The question is about mixing the rules of the Sabbatical with those of orlah. Either the 15th of Shevat should not apply to trees planted less than 30 days before New Year’s Day or one should not have to wait more than one year, to the following New Year’s Day, to count year 2 of the sapling planted less than 30 days before the end of the current year.. But if it was not planted 30 days before the New Year? Come and see: Is not a full year being counted for him, and you say so¹⁹²Even though the fourth year of the tree starts on Tishre 1, one has to wait another 4½ months to use its fruit.? He said to him: If it is so, even if he planted 30 days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until 30 days before the New Year¹⁹³If the 15th of Shevaṭ is not a universal date, should not any fruit be forbidden for three full years, counted from date to date?? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year¹⁹⁴Since “middle of the year” excludes the last 30 days, one will have to wait until the fourth New Year to use the fruit since the years have to be completed; then one does not have to wait for the 15th of Shevaṭ (interpretation of Maimonides.) In his opinion, if a sapling was planted 44 days before New Year’s day, 14 days for the roots to take hold and 30 days to grow, one does not have to wait for the 15th of Shevat but may use the fruit on New Year’s day., it has to finish its year.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A ring does not have the status of a pledge⁴⁴Since it has to be returned as is, it is only a reminder without legal consequences. Cf. Ševi‘t 10:9, Note 131; Babli 48b.. Nobody dealing in words onlymay one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁴⁵Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one promised a gift to another and wanted to renege on it, he may renege.⁴⁶Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 133–142; Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:7 Note 129 Babli 49a. [Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is that “true no, true yes⁴⁷Lev. 19:36.”?]⁴⁸Text added from E. Since the answer is given in L, the question must have been in the original text. For the duty to be honest in monetary matters as a biblical command, cf. Ševi‘it 10:9, Note 134; Giṭṭin 6:1, Note 39. He said, at the moment when he said it, he had to speak with full deliberation⁴⁹The obligation to be honest does not imply a prohibition to change one’s mind. In the Giṭṭin text, it is R. Jacob bar Zavdi who gives the answer to R. Yose [Babli 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Bekhorot Pereq 8(7)].. After that, if he changes his mind, he cannot change it, that is, if [the recipient] is poor⁵⁰Giving alms is not a gift to the poor but a gift to God and as such is final upon being promised (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6.
Kaftor waPeraḥ Chapter 44 reads: “If somebody promised to give a gift and wants to change his mind, he may change his mind. But if he said, I am speaking with full deliberation, he cannot change his mind. That is, for a rich recipient. But for a poor recipient it becomes a vow.” This seems to be more of a paraphrase than an exact quote.. But for a rich person, is that a vow? Rav commanded his servant: If I tell you to give a gift to a person, if he is poor, give it to him immediately. But if he is rich, take counsel with me a second time⁵¹This contradicts the statement in Ševi‘t 10:9 that Rav never changed his mind once he had promised a gift..

There⁹⁷Mishnah Keritut 2:4. “Incest” always includes adultery., we have stated: “In all matters of incest, He made him who touches⁹⁸The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot Chapter 6, Note 11. equal to him who completes and one is guilty for each single intercourse⁹⁹This refers to the rules concerning a slave girl (Lev. 19:20–22) who according to some opinions is partially manumitted (cf. Babli Keritut11a.). The Babli’s tradition eliminates the rules from practical importance by restricting them to a girl living with a Hebrew slave. Since the institution of Hebrew slaves was abolished with the Babylonian exile, never to be reinstituted, the frequent discussions of the rules are purely theoretical. However, in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5(1), at least one opinion describes the slave girl engaged to a free man in the expectation of her manumission.
As a slave, the girl can not marry and therefore she is free to have guiltless sex with any man not a Jew (cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 347). Upon manumission, she becomes a free Jewish woman and able to contract a valid marriage with any Jew who is not a priest. She is permitted to live with a Hebrew slave (Ex. 21:4). Since her relationship with the slave is not a marriage, her affair with another man is not adultery. From the man’s side, the affair with the slave girl is the only sin which can be atoned for by a sacrifice if committed intentionally. A purification sacrifice is possible only for inadvertent sins; the relation with the semi-free girl can be atoned for by a reparation sacrifice. (An intentional sin can only be cleansed by God’s mercy in response to repentance.) For inadvertent sins, a purification sacrifice is due for each single transgression; one reparation sacrifice covers the entire affair.. He was more stringent with the slave girl since in her case He treated the intentional as unintentional.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamai in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen,” until he ejaculates¹⁰⁰Lev. 19:20: “If a man sleep with a woman by flow of semen …” The intercourse of a free man with the slave girl is not punishable unless there was an ejaculation.. Here is written “flow of semen”, and here is written “flow of semen.¹⁰¹In the case of the straying wife, Num. 5:13 reads: “A man slept with her with flow of semen.” Nevertheless, the wife becomes impure and forbidden to her husband already if her paramour’s penis touches her genitals. This seems to contradict our principle that equal expressions used in different circumstances must have equal meanings.” Here¹⁰²In the case of the slave girl., you say “flow of semen” until he ejaculates. And here¹⁰³In the case of the straying wife., you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for it is written¹⁰⁴Num. 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure.” From the moment she was hidden, the Torah calls her “impure”. But here¹⁰²In the case of the slave girl., “flow of semen,” until he ejaculates. For what reason is written¹⁰³In the case of the straying wife. “flow of semen”? For measures¹⁰⁵To measure how long the wife must be hidden together with her paramour to be impure and subject to the ordeal. In another connection this is quoted in the Babli, 2b., as it is stated¹⁰⁴Num. 5:13.: “She was hidden and became impure”; what is counted as hiding¹⁰⁶Babli 4a. The Babli discusses why all these expressions have to be used.? Time to become impure. What is the time for impurity? Time for intercourse. What is the time for intercourse? Time for ‘touching’⁹⁸The man whose genital touches the woman’s. This is a technical term, cf. Yebamot Chapter 6, Note 11..

The ‘meal of comfort’¹⁸The first meal partaken by the mourners on their return from the funeral is termed ‘the meal of comfort [habra’ah]’; cf. 2 Sam. 3, 35, to cause David to eat bread (lehabroth). It was prepared by friends and consisted of lentils and eggs (cf. Sanh. 63a, Sonc. ed., p. 430, n. 6) the round shape of which being a reminder of the revolving wheel of fortune. is not eaten in their case, as it is stated, Ye shall not eat [anything] with the blood.¹⁹Lev. 19, 26. This is homiletically interpreted to mean: where blood is shed (i.e. an execution has taken place) no ceremonial meal of mourners should be eaten. Cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
[The judges of] a Court who ordered the execution of a man used not to eat anything on that day.²⁰Sanh. loc. cit.
[The condemned] are allowed to converse with their brothers and relatives; and not to delay matters²¹i.e. to avoid giving the appearance that the execution of justice is unduly protracted. they are given to drink wine containing frankincense²²To numb the senses; cf. Sanh. 43a (Sonc. ed., p. 279). so that they should not feel grieved. They are urged²³lit. ‘they teach them’. to confess, because he who confesses has a portion in the World to Come. We find it so with Achan to whom Joshua said, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide nothing from me. And Achan answered Joshua, and said: Of a truth I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done.²⁴Josh. 7, 19f. What is the meaning of and thus and thus? It teaches that he violated the ban twice.²⁵By taking from the devoted things on two occasions. Sanh. 43b (Sonc. ed., p. 284) explains that he took of the ban three times, twice in the days of Moses and once at Jericho. [44b] I have sinned, i.e. I and not my household, I and not my children. This teaches that he truthfully²⁶Of a truth (’omnam) is explained as be’emunah (‘truthfully’). confessed. And whence do we know that his confession made atonement for him? As it is stated, And Joshua said: Why hast thou troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day²⁷ibid. 25.—this day art thou to be troubled but thou shalt not be troubled in the World to Come; and it states, And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol and Dara: five of them in all.²⁸1 Chron. 2, 6. Do we not know that there were five of them in all?²⁹Since five names are specified. It teaches that Achan will be with them in the world to come.³⁰Cf. Sanh. 44b (Sonc. ed., p. 291). Zimri, according to a tradition, is identical with Achan. As Achan is mentioned together with the other four, who are considered to be worthy men, it is an indication that his confession was accepted and with them he shared in the World to Come.
Similarly one who steals the tax³¹i.e. eludes the customs; cf. B.Ḳ. 113a (Sonc. ed., p. 663), Tosiftha B.Ḳ. X, 8. or anything devoted [to the Sanctuary] is as if he shed blood; and not only is he as if he shed blood, but he is also as if he worships idols, was guilty of immorality and desecrates the Sabbath.³²[On this passage, cf. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, p. 198n.]

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]¹⁰²A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin 2:7.. “He shall write for her.¹⁰³Deut. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.¹⁰⁴Num. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.¹⁰⁵Lev. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” ¹⁰⁶Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow¹⁰⁷Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead., the dust of the suspected wife¹⁰⁸As described in the Mishnah., and the spittle of the sister-in-law¹⁰⁹Deut. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease¹¹⁰Lev. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible¹¹¹Taking exactly one quarter log (135 dl, cf. Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated¹¹²Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Babli 16b.: “In the blood¹¹³Lev. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁴Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁵R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..

It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from explaining ה by ח.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp¹⁵⁸But on the altar one is liable at least in violation of a positive commandment. Babli Menaḥot 37b/38a.. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases.. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide¹⁵⁹From here on and the next paragraphs there is a parallel (but not an exact copy) in Sanhedrin 7:5 Notes 72–125.
One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general category was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire category.” R. Abun bar Ḥiyya states that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more.. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells¹⁶⁰Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples in the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class¹⁶¹To use witchcraft is a capital crime (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5); in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case¹⁶²Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately..

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield to add for you, etc.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property, so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

His spittle, his seat, his couch and his urine are unclean; his bread,³So MS.K. and H; V ‘his dough’. his oil and his wine are clean. The prohibitions thou shalt not do him wrong,⁴Lev. 19, 33. thou shalt not oppress⁵Deut. 24, 14. and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night⁶Lev. 19, 13. apply to him.

His spittle, his seat, his couch and his urine are unclean; his bread,³So MS.K. and H; V ‘his dough’. his oil and his wine are clean. The prohibitions thou shalt not do him wrong,⁴Lev. 19, 33. thou shalt not oppress⁵Deut. 24, 14. and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night⁶Lev. 19, 13. apply to him.

HALAKHAH: “One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”²²²The expression is considered redundant: “And on the occasion of your harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish the corner of your field during your harvesting but abandon it for the poor and the stranger.”? Even if he has still more to harvest²²³Hence, peah can be given at any time after the harvest has started. (It was already discussed in Halakha 1 that the very first stalk can never be peah).. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for the beginning and one for the end²²⁴The disagreement seems to be that according to R. Jonah some peah must be given at the end (as explained by R. Simeon bar Ioḥai in the Mishnah) but that according R. Yose all peah might be given earlier. According to R. Jonah, R. Simeon explains the first sentence; according to R. Yose, he disagrees with the first sentence.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for sacred property and one for private persons²²⁵R. Joshua ben Levi does not consider the second “to harvest” redundant but referring to a different kind of harvest.
הדיוֹט “private person”, Greek ἰδιώτης.. Rebbi Yudan asked, do not coins redeem sacred property only when it is cut; maybe when it is standing²²⁶While real estate donated to the Temple may be sold to private persons (and the proceeds used for the needs of the Temple), it is clear from many sources (e. g. Mishnah 4:5) that as long as the field is in the possession of the Temple, the rules of peah do not apply. Hence, any peah taken would have to come from a field that was bought with the grain standing, not after harvest when the grain was already cut by the Temple staff and is exempt.? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, you should not say that harvest of sacred property should be treated like harvest of a private person²²⁷The argument of R. Joshua ben Levi differs from that of R. Simeon ben Laqish that the second “to harvest” adds something; it eliminates harvest that is not “yours” but public property. Hence, anybody who buys a field with its crop from the Temple is required to leave peah, but anybody who buys the field with its crop after it was cut by the personnel of the Temple has no obligation to give peah from his grain (Chapter 4, Mishnah 5)..

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος²³²“For the king the law is unwritten.”. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he²³³Translated following G and A. In the text: “if they want”. desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal²³⁴Lev. 22:9., I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal²³⁵Lev. 19:32.. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person²³⁶Gen. 18:2.. Rebbi Simon said, it is written²³⁷Deut. 4:8, misquoted.: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it²³⁸Deut. 4:7, text of G. A only quotes the first words of the verse, but clearly this indicates v. 7, not v. 8. Since in the ms. the start of v. 7 is grafted on the text of v. 8 it is reasonable to assume that the original quote is v. 7..> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy²³⁹On New Year’s Day.. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber²⁴⁰Greek ληστής. says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders²⁴¹Greek συνήγορος., summon accusers²⁴²Greek κατήγωρ. A instead reads ספיקטורין which probably is shortened from ספקלטורין, Semitic plural of Latin speculator “examiner.”, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.]²⁴³Corrector’s addition, confirmed by G. If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob²⁴⁴Ps. 81:5.. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak²⁴⁵The customary expression to excuse anthropomorphisms. Babli 8b. it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare²⁴⁶Lev. 23:2. While the holidays are declared to be “the Eternal’s holidays”,
since they depend on calendar dates, the actual dates are fixed not by God but by the calendar authorities. Cf. Shevi`it10:2 Notes 53–54.. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us²⁴⁷Ps. 40:6.. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us²⁴⁸This passage is explained in A: “From the creation of the world up to Moses did the Holy One, praise to Him, compute the motions of the stars, and New Moons, and turning points (Note 161). When Moses was appointed, He handed over to him the secret of the calendar as it is said, this month is for you the head of months. Up to this time it was Mine, from now on it is delivered to you.” The following parables have to be explained as exploring the meaning of this handing over the sacred calendar to human interpretation.. Rebbi <Joshua ben>²⁴⁹Added from G and A. This attribution is most likely correct even though the Yerushalmi, in contrast to the Babli, does not in general follow a chronological sequence of the quotes. R. Joshua ben Levi, great authority of the first generation of Amoraim, can precede the second generation authority R. Yose ben Ḥanina better than the third generation preacher (but not halakhic authority) R. Levi. Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

It was stated⁶⁹There are parallels in Tosephta Peah 1:6, Sifra Qedošim 1:10, Babli Šabbat 23a. In all these parallels, there are four reasons given, meaning that R. Simeon explains the reason of the Biblical law. In the Babli, R. Simeon is reputed to deduce laws from the reasoning behind Biblical precepts; the Yerushalmi does not seem to accept this but gives reasons separate from the verse. (The Tosephta in our hands is essentially a Babylonian compilation; Sifra is Palestinian material edited in Babylonia.) It is clear that R. Simeon supports here his argument in Mishnah 1:3 that peah must be given at the end, because of Biblical precept and rabbinical ordinance. in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For five reasons one should give peah only at the end of one’s field, because of robbing the poor, because of idling the poor, because of cheats, because of bad impression, and because the Torah said (Lev. 19:9): “Do not finish off the corner of your field.” Because of robbing the poor, that no man should see a free hour and say to his poor relative: Come, and take this peah for yourself. Because of idling the poor, that the poor should not sit around, watch the entire day, and say: Now he is giving peah, now he is giving peah, but rather they should go, collect on another field, and come at the moment of finishing. Because of the cheats, that one should not say: I already gave, and then he chooses the good and brings out the bad⁷⁰We are not concerned here with people who willingly transgress the ordinances of the Torah. Rather, we speak about so-called pious people who find ways to minimize their obligations. In this case, the farmer harvests the entire field without giving peah. Then he is obligated to give peah from the cut grain but here he has the possibility to select stalks with small kernels for the poor, whereas he has no such control if he refrains from cutting the last corner.. Because of bad impression, that the passers-by should not say: Look, this man harvested his field and did not leave peah for the poor. And because the Torah said: “Do not finish off the corner of your field.”

Did we not state: (Lev. 19:32) “You shall rise and give respect³¹“Before a white head (an old person) you shall rise and give respect to an Elder (a rabbinic authority).”.” Just as rising does not cost anything, so giving respect should not cost anything³²Sifra Qedošim Pereq 7(13). But the Mishnah requires the artisans, who are paid for their products, not for their time, to get up when the procession passes by and lose time (which is money) from their work.? There is a difference here since it is only once in a long time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya: Come and see how strong is the case of those who come to fulfill a commandment! For before an elder one does not have to stand³³If it costs money. The saying is quoted in Babli Qiddušin 33a. but before those who come to fulfill a commandment one stands! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, those that stand up before a dead person do not stand up before the dead but before those who serve him in charity³⁴This sentence is added because it is a homily by R. Yose ben R. Abun and is somehow connected with the topic discussed..

How often does a person have to rise before an Elder? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: twice a day³⁵In the Babli, Qiddušin 33b, it is formulated in the name of R. Yannai: That the reverence shown to a Sage should not be greater than that given to God, before Whom one appears twice daily, for morning and afternoon/evening prayers.. Rebbi Eleazar said, once a day. Was it not stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, from where that an Elder should not importune? The verse says (Lev. 19:32): “Elder, but you should fear your God, I am the Eternal³⁶Sifra Qedošim Pereq 7(15). The ending of the verse is addressed not to the person who has to show reverence to the rabbi but to the rabbi..” According to Rebbi Joḥanan, this is understandable³⁷He holds that the reverence shown to a rabbi must definitely be less than that given God.. According to Rebbi Eleazar one should not get up at all³⁶Sifra Qedošim Pereq 7(15). The ending of the verse is addressed not to the person who has to show reverence to the rabbi but to the rabbi.! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That he should not see a group of old men³⁸Or any people. and pass in front of them so they should rise before him. Just as they³⁹R. Johanan and R. Eleazar; how many times a student has to greet his teacher every day. disagree here, so they disagree about greeting.

A Torah scroll may not be placed on a bed and [certainly]²⁰Cf. N.Y. on Sof. III, 13. The insertion of ‘certainly’ avoids an anticlimax. not at its foot or under it; nor may one sit²¹lit. ‘that one may sit’. on a bed while a [Torah] scroll rests on it. It is related that R. Eliezer²²In Sof. III, 13, ‘R. Eleazar’. once sat [unknowingly] on a bed on which a [Torah] scroll lay, and [when he realized it] he jumped up as if a snake had bitten him. [Such respect is shown for the Torah] because Scripture declares, Ye shall keep My sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary²³Lev. 19, 30.—it is not the Sabbaths that one reverences but Him Who commanded [to observe them], for Scripture declares, This is my God, and I will glorify Him²⁴Ex. 15, 2. [which means,]²⁵Connecting we’anwehu (I will glorify Him) homiletically with na’eh (beautiful) and understanding it as ‘I will serve Him in a beautiful manner’. I will perform the commandment in a beautiful way to His glory.²⁶lit. ‘before Him’. Such is the interpretation of R. Ishmael. R. ‘Aḳiba expounds it: I will expatiate on His excellencies.²⁷Heb. na’oth, lit. ‘beauties’, excellent attributes. Abba Saul explains it: I will be like Him,²⁸He explains we’anwehu as the equivalent of ’ani wahu (I and He). i.e. as He is gracious and merciful so be thou gracious and merciful.

A scroll of the Torah may not be placed on a bed and [certainly]⁴²Cf. N.Y. The addition of ‘certainly’ avoids an anticlimax. not at its foot or under it; nor may one sit on a bed on which a [Torah] scroll [happens to] rest. It is related that R. Eleazar once sat [unwittingly] on a bed on which lay a [Torah] scroll and [when he realized it] he jumped up as if a snake had bitten him. [Respect is shown for the Torah] because Scripture states, Ye shall keep My sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary⁴³Lev. 19, 30.—it is not the sabbaths that one reverences but Him who commanded [to keep them], nor is one to reverence the sanctuary but Him who commanded [to make] it.
It is obligatory to make beautiful ẓiẓith, beautiful mezuzoth, to write a beautiful scroll of the Torah with choice ink, with a fine reed-pen [written] by an expert penman⁴⁴[Reading with Bacher, Ag. d. Tannaiten, I, p. 254n לבלר אומן for לבלרין נאים (fine pen-men).] on well-finished parchments, on deer skins,⁴⁵So GRA. V and H, ‘dyed skins’. and to wrap it in precious silks; for Scripture states, This is my God, and I will glorify Him,⁴⁶Ex. 15, 2, I will glorify Him (ואנוהו) is connected homiletically with נאה, ‘beautiful’, and understood as ‘I will serve Him in a beautiful manner’. which means, perform the commandments in a beautiful manner to His glory.⁴⁷lit. ‘before Him’. Such is the interpretation of R. Ishmael. R. ‘Aḳiba expounds the text as meaning that one should expatiate on His excellencies. Abba Saul explains: Be like Him;⁴⁸He explains ואנוהו as the equivalent of אני והוא, ‘I and He’. as He is merciful and gracious so be thou merciful and gracious.

Rebbi Meïr, when he saw even a vulgar old man, rose before him. He said, not for nothing did he live so long. Rebbi Ḥanina slapped a person who did not rise before him and said, do you want to do away with the Torah? Rebbi Simon said, The Holy One, praise to Him, said (Lev. 19:32): “Before a white head you shall rise, give respect to an Elder, and fear your God, I am the Eternal.” I am the one who first observed standing before an Elder⁵¹Gen. 18:2..

They wanted to ordain Rebbi Zeïra but he did not want to take it upon himself. When he heard a Tanna stating: “For an ordained person, a bridegroom, a patriarch, the dignity deletes [his sins],” he accepted being ordained. An ordained person: (Lev. 19:32): “Before a white head you shall rise, give respect to an Elder, and fear your God, I am the Eternal.” What is written after that (v. 33): “If a proselyte lives in your land, you shall not trick him.” Just as all his sins are forgiven to the proselyte, so all sins are forgiven to one being ordained. The bridegroom: (Gen. 28:9) “Esaw went to Ismael and married Maḥalat⁵⁸“The one being forgiven.” bat Ismael.” But was her name Maḥalat, was it not Basemat⁵⁹“The perfumed.” The verse would prove only that prior sins of the bride are forgiven.? But all his sins were forgiven him. The president: (1S. 13:1) “Saul was one year old when he became king.” Was he one year old when he became king? But all his sins were forgiven him as to a baby of one year.

They wanted to ordain Rebbi Zeïra but he did not want to take it upon himself. When he heard a Tanna stating: “For an ordained person, a bridegroom, a patriarch, the dignity deletes [his sins],” he accepted being ordained. An ordained person: (Lev. 19:32): “Before a white head you shall rise, give respect to an Elder, and fear your God, I am the Eternal.” What is written after that (v. 33): “If a proselyte lives in your land, you shall not trick him.” Just as all his sins are forgiven to the proselyte, so all sins are forgiven to one being ordained. The bridegroom: (Gen. 28:9) “Esaw went to Ismael and married Maḥalat⁵⁸“The one being forgiven.” bat Ismael.” But was her name Maḥalat, was it not Basemat⁵⁹“The perfumed.” The verse would prove only that prior sins of the bride are forgiven.? But all his sins were forgiven him. The president: (1S. 13:1) “Saul was one year old when he became king.” Was he one year old when he became king? But all his sins were forgiven him as to a baby of one year.

HALAKHAH: Commandment prohibition: Incest prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim; it is a biblical commandment to listen to the words of the Sopherim. And Holiness prohibition: A widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. “These are the commandments,⁷⁴Lev. 27:35. The last verse of Lev. includes all commandments contained in the book. This sentence is redundant here; it belongs to the argument of those who switch the attributions.” all commandments are one. “⁷⁵Lev. 21:8; this explains the expression “holiness prohibitions”. You should sanctify him, for he brings the bread of your God.” But some⁷⁶In the Babli, 20a, the first interpretation is that of the rabbis, the second that of Rebbi Jehudah. do switch: A widow for the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had ḥalîṣah for a simple priest, “you should sanctify him, for he brings the bread of your God.” “These are the commandments,” all commandments are one⁷⁷The special rules for priests are called “commandment prohibitions”.. And holiness prohibitions, incest prohibitions instituted by the Sopherim⁷⁸Lev. 19:2, “you shall be holy”, is taken as general injunction to the religious leadership to institute “fences around the law” to which the secondary prohibitions belong..

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:9)²⁴⁴The derivation is given, with some variations, in Sifra Kedoshim,Pereq1, Babli Ḥullin137a, Yalqut Shim‘oni #604. “And at your reaping,²⁴⁵The full verse reads: “At your reaping the harvest of your land, do not finish reaping the corner of your field, and do not pick up isolated stalks; do abandon them to the poor and the sojourner; I am the Eternal, your God.””not only reaping; from where do we add plucking? The verse says “to harvest.” From where do we add uprooting²⁴⁶This is the reading of the parallel sources and of S. Cirillo; the Venice print has “reaping”, which certainly is incorrect.? The verse says “your harvest.” Not only grain, from where do we add legumes? The verse says “in your land.” From where do we add trees, the verse says “your field²⁴⁷An orchard in which the trees allow for plowing between them is called “a field of trees.”.”

BARAITHA. If you desire to learn, do not say of what you do not understand, ‘I understand it’. If you are asked a question about something in which you are not well versed do not be ashamed to say, ‘I do not know’. If you are taught something and you do not understand it, be not ashamed to say, ‘I do not understand it’.
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? [From David], for it is written, I will also speak of Thy testimonies before kings, and will not be ashamed²⁴Ps. 119, 46.—that is, [to inquire] of Mephibosheth²⁵On Mephibosheth as David’s teacher, cf. Ber. 4a (Sonc. ed., p. 11). how to act, whether to declare it forbidden or permissible.
BARAITHA.²⁶Ned. 62a (Sonc. ed., p. 197). Do good deeds for the sake of their Maker.²⁷i.e. God Who desires them to be done. Or, ‘for the sake of doing them’; cf. Aboth I, 3 (Sonc. ed., pp. 2f.). Do not make them a crown wherewith to adorn yourself, or an axe wherewith to cut. Accustom yourself to take upon yourself the precepts of the Torah [even] at the cost of suffering.
GEMARA. [‘Do not make them a crown’, etc.,] lest you receive your share [of the World to Come] in this world; for he who glorifies himself with the crown of the Torah has no share in the World to Come.²⁸cf. Ned. loc. cit. (Sonc. ed., p. 196): ‘Whoever puts the crown of the Torah to [profane] use is uprooted from the world’. [‘Nor an axe wherewith to cut.’] Do not withhold corn²⁹Figuratively used of the Torah. The comparison is based on Prov. 11, 26. Cf. Sanh. 91b-92a (Sonc. ed., pp. 614f.). from others; for [53b] even the embryos [in their mothers’ wombs] curse him who withholds corn from others. Here³⁰In this Gemara. [only if he is asked to teach] without payment [is he under the curse], but there³¹In the passage quoted from Sanh. even if he is offered payment [and refuses to teach].
[‘Accustom yourself to take upon yourself the precepts’, etc.] It has been taught:³²Sanh. 111a (Sonc. ed., p. 762). Whoever maintains himself by words of Torah, the Torah does not become intimate with him. There³³In the passage from Sanh. it speaks of self-pleasure and here³⁴In this Gemara. Pursue the study of the Torah even at the cost of sleep. of sleep.
BARAITHA. Do not resent an insult to you. A good record and a blameless adolescence [inspire] security and truth.
GEMARA. [‘Do not resent an insult to you.’] How is this meant? [Do not boast,] ‘So-and-so did such-and-such to me and I have not retaliated’. What is meant by ‘a good record’? Do 1 ot [give cause] to be included in the number of the dissolute, lest people say, ‘How many dissolute persons there are here, including you among them!’ ‘And a blameless adolescence.’ But this has already been taught in the preceding chapter!³⁵In III, 12. There it speaks of his actual doing evil and here [of not giving cause for suspicion] against him. ‘[Inspire] security.’ Some say [that this means]: One should have a sense of security so that the Torah becomes rolled³⁶So that he studies Torah with a carefree mind. H reads nikleleth, ‘contained’. up in his heart. Others [explain]: Inspire confidence in those who ask of you. The latter interpretation conforms to the wording of the Baraitha, ‘and truth’, which implies: Do not falsify confidence [which is placed in you].
BARAITHA.³⁷Cf. Aboth III, 16 (Sonc. ed., III, 12, p. 35). Be submissive to a superior, patient under oppression, of cheerful appearance and keep away from sin.
GEMARA. ‘Be submissive to a superior’: that is, to the ruling power. ‘Patient under oppression’: that is, forced labour as happened with R. Eleazar b. Ḥarson.³⁸Cf. Yoma 35b (Sonc. ed., p. 164). When conscripted by the authorities for forced labour, R. Eleazar paid them a large sum of money for his release so that he could continue his study of the Torah. ‘Be of cheerful appearance’: can one [always] keep his appearance cheerful? [Yes]; for when R. Dimi came he said: The man who [by smiling] shows his teeth white [to his fellow] is better than he who gives him milk to drink.³⁹Cf. Keth. 111b (Sonc. ed., p. 723) where the saying is attributed to R. Joḥanan. What is to be derived from this statement? As illustrated by the experience of R. Beroḳa.⁴⁰Cf. Ta‘an. 22a (Sonc. ed., p. 110). Two men passed by R. Beroḳa when Elijah appeared and exclaimed that these men had a share in the World to Come. On inquiring of them what their occupation was, they told the Rabbi, ‘We are jesters, and when we see men depressed we cheer them up’. ‘Keep away from sin’: so that all can speak about you and you have no need to clear yourself of suspicion.
BARAITHA. Refrain from committing a light sin lest it lead you to one that is grievous. Be mindful of a small precept that it may lead you to one that is important.
GEMARA. It has been learnt:⁴¹Aboth IV, 2 (Sonc. ed., p. 44). Ben ‘Azzai said: Run to do a slight precept and flee from transgression. There [it speaks of fleeing from sin] of one’s free will; here [of fleeing] even when under compulsion. [The proof of this is that the Baraitha] teaches, ‘Refrain, etc.’⁴²The Heb. verb means ‘tremble, shake’ and in the niph‘al ‘move backward’; hence, fleeing under compulsion.
BARAITHA. If you desire to gain the love of your friend,⁴³This is the reading of H in agreement with DER I. busy yourself with his welfare. If you desire to keep away from sin consider where it eventually leads. Attach yourself lovingly to the precepts. Be proud and happy to speak diligently and sing of its details.⁴⁴So GRA, who reads פרטיה.
GEMARA. ‘If you desire to gain the love’, etc. As it is written, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.⁴⁵Lev. 19, 18. Because you love your neighbour as yourself he is like yourself. ‘If you desire to keep away from sin consider where it eventually leads.’ As it is written, The wise man, his eyes are in his head.⁴⁶Eccl. 2, 14. But the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth;⁴⁷Prov. 17, 24. he regards only what is before him and ignores the consequences. ‘Attach yourself lovingly to the precepts’, by respecting those who fulfil the precepts. ‘Be proud’, etc., by inquiring into the reason of a precept.
BARAITHA. If He has bestowed upon you a small bounty, let it be in your eyes as great and you need to give thanks that He cared⁴⁸Reading the root ספן instead of ספר. for you and bestowed bounty upon you.
GEMARA. ‘If He has bestowed’, etc. Whence do we learn this? For it is written, And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord thy God for the good land which He hath given thee.⁴⁹Deut. 8, 10. And whence do we know that one is obliged [to bless God] although he has not eaten to satisfaction? For it is written, Give the people that they may eat,⁵⁰2 Kings 4, 43. and it is written, And they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord,⁵¹ibid. 44. There were twenty loaves with which to feed 100 men, and therefore insufficient to satisfy them; yet they blessed God. The words according to the word of the Lord, on this interpretation, refer back to the passage in Deut., and bless the Lord thy God. [which means] blessing [God]. An objection was raised against this: [It is stated,] He restored the border of Israel … according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah, the son of Amittai!⁵²ibid. XIV, 25. Here the phrase according to the word of the Lord occurs without reference to thanking God for food. There, too, it was a case of thanksgiving.⁵³For victory and regaining the former territories of Israel. Come and hear: [It is stated,] According to the word of the Lord, which He spoke to Elijah!⁵⁴ibid. X, 17, where again there is no reference to thanking God. There, too, say that [the word of the Lord] implies: Blessed be He Who has fulfilled His promise [to inflict punishment upon the house of Ahab]. Come and hear: [It is stated,] According unto the saying of the Lord, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Aḥijah the Shilonite!⁵⁵1 Kings 15, 29. And if you think it is as you said [that the phrase means thanking God, how will you explain this verse?] There^55a(55a) In the verses cited in the various objections. it is written by the hand of, here⁵⁶In the verses quoted as proof from 2 Kings 4, 43f. it is without any qualification.⁵⁷i.e. without the addition by the hand of, etc.
BARAITHA. If you have done much good let it be in your eyes as little. Say, ‘Not with what belongs to me have I done good’, but ‘with what has been granted to me’.
GEMARA. [We learn this] from David; for it is written, Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house?⁵⁸2 Sam. 7, 18. and it states, And what can David say more unto Thee?⁵⁹ibid. 20. and it states, And this was yet a small thing in Thine eyes, O Lord God.⁶⁰ibid. 19. What [is the force of] the additional verses which are cited? Should you say: There because He said to him, And I will make thee a great name, like unto the name of the great ones that are in the earth,⁶¹ibid. 9. [David] exclaimed, Who am I?⁶²Although David was a pious man, he felt himself to be unworthy of God’s promise. This would be a support for the statement of the Baraitha. then come and hear: [What is the force of] And what can David say more unto Thee? Should you reply [that it means,] What else can I pray for? then come and hear: He said, And this was yet a small thing in Thine eyes, O Lord God, that is, it is a small thing for Thee but for me it is a very great thing. [It is stated,] But Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come.⁶³ibid. 19. The word also is intended to add something: [David said,] ‘Not only didst Thou praise me, but also of my seed hast Thou declared, And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee.⁶⁴ibid. 16.
But Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come: this⁶⁵Reading with H זה (this) for לא (not). means ‘in the days to come’.⁶⁶The Heb. for a great while to come is lit. ‘from afar’, here equated with the hereafter. As the word is interpreted here to refer to the hereafter, it follows that there is another meaning of the word without reference to the hereafter. Whence do we know this? [It is stated,] I will fetch my knowledge from afar⁶⁷Job 36, 3, where the phrase from afar cannot mean the hereafter but the distant past.— to what [does this refer]? To what has happened from the beginning. Raba said: Infer from this that one who knows when the Messiah will come is here speaking of his times:⁶⁸Cf. H’s note ad loc. Hence the verse from Job refers to the hereafter. and this is also how David used [the word]. And what Isaiah⁶⁹The Text reads ‘Jeremiah’ in error for ‘Isaiah’. said must be included in the reckoning of the years,⁷⁰In alluding to the Messianic era Isaiah speaks of it as coming within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and this makes the date of that era more definite. This would be contrary to the indefiniteness conveyed by the days to come. Hence the phrase within a year, etc., must not be taken literally but understood to denote ‘a time in the future’. as it is written, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Ḳedar shall fail; and the residue of the number of the archers, the mighty men of the children of Ḳedar, shall be diminished; for the Lord, the God of Israel, hath spoken it.⁷¹Isa. 21, 16f.
BARAITHA. If men have done you much evil let it be little in your eyes. Say, ‘Only a small part of the punishment due to me have I received; I have deserved more’.
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? From Abraham⁷²Who acknowledged that God dealt with him with more consideration than he deserved. Cf. Gen. 18, 27, who am but dust and ashes. Another possible translation is: ‘The reward from the Maker is greater [than I merit]’. [who exclaimed,] ‘The reward is greater than the labourer [merits]’.
BARAITHA. If you have done a little evil let it be great in your eyes. Say, ‘Woe to me that I have sinned, that a stumbling-block should have chanced to me!’
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? From the Gibeonites.⁷³Cf. Josh. 9. Raba objected, ‘Must we, then, learn this from the Gibeonites as otherwise we would not know it?’⁷⁴If it were not for the Gibeonites, would such an ethical teaching be unknown from Hebraic sources? R. Aḥa said to him, ‘And why should we not learn it from them? Were they not merged in Israel?’ It is written, And made as if they hath been ambassadors;⁷⁵Josh. 9, 4; the Heb. verb is wayyiẓṭayyaru. and it is also written, This is our bread we took hot for our provision,⁷⁶ibid. 12; the Heb. verb is hiẓṭayyadnu. [which means] they took provisions with them and said, ‘This is the food which we provided for ourselves in our country; behold,⁷⁷Reading הרי for V וקרי. it has become mouldy⁷⁸Heb. niẓṭayyar. because of the length of the journey’. When they had spoken to Israel and the latter knew [the true facts], what is the meaning of [the Gibeonites’ words to Joshua], And now, behold, we are in thy hand?⁷⁹ibid. 25. [Because it is written,] And Joshua made peace with them,⁸⁰ibid. 15. Since Joshua had already made peace with them, why should they have said this to him? and it is written, And the men took of their provision,⁸¹ibid. 14. The men are the Israelites, who believed the story told to them. the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘You gluttons, sons of gluttons, who love gluttony, your fathers also acted likewise [when they declared,] We remember the fish.⁸²Num. 11, 5. All food finds its way to the mouth, but My mouth⁸³lit. ‘His mouth’, i.e. God’s command. you do not remember, [as it is stated,] And asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord,⁸⁴Josh. 9, 14. [Who warned you] in the words, Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee and thou eat of their sacrifice.⁸⁵Ex. 34, 15.
Also Joshua was punished on this account. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Because [the Gibeonites] entreated you [saying], And now, behold, we are in thy hand; as it seemeth good and right unto thee to do unto us, do,⁸⁶Josh. 9, 25. I will bring forth a son from you who will implore Israel in the same manner,⁸⁷Reading sidra with H. [saying,] As for me, behold I am in your hand; do with me as is good and right in your eyes.⁸⁸Jer. 26, 14. The allusion is to Jeremiah’s plea to the princes and people on being arrested for prophesying the destruction of the Temple. Jeremiah was descended from Rahab.⁸⁹Cf. Meg. 14b (Sonc. ed., p. 86) where it is stated that Joshua married Rahab, and Jeremiah was one of their descendants.

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself⁵⁹Lev. 19:18.”. Rebbi Aqiba says, that is a great principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says, “this is the book of the descent of man⁶⁶Gen. 5:1, which negates the role of race in the creation of man.” is a more important principle⁶⁷Sifra Qedos̄im Pereq 4(12). A fuller version is in Gen. rabba 24(8): Ben Azzai says, “this is the book of the descent of man” is a great principle in the Torah. Rebbi Aqiba says, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” is a great principle in the Torah. That you should not say, since I was insulted, another should be insulted with me; since I was cursed, another should be cursed with me. Rebbi Tanḥuma {last generation of Galilean Amoraim} said, if you did this, know Whom you are insulting: “In God’s image He made him.”.

Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this²⁵⁴The entire verse reads: “If you harvest your vineyard, you should not go back to pluck the single berries; it should be for the convert, the orphan, and the widow.” The definition of a single berry is given in Mishnah Peah 7:4. The question is about the meaning of the word עוֹלל “to go over it a second time”. The root עלל means “go over a second time, do anything a second time.” In Arabic, علل means “to harvest fruits a second time”. For example, עלילה means doing something following a well thought-out plan. Rebbi Jonah reads the verse in Lamentations as: “May all their evil come before You and may You repeatedly punish them, just as You repeatedly punished me for all my sins.” One is not allowed to go over the vines a second time after one has harvested the bunched grapes; that is the equivalent of peah for vines, (מתעלל is usually translated “to abuse, to mistreat,” it should be taken to mean “to mistreat repeatedly” with emphasis on the repetition of abuse.)? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this²⁵⁵The verse reads: “If you shake your olive tree, do not investigate every branch afterwards; it should be for the convert, the orphan and the widow.” The way of harvesting olives for pressing oil is to shake every branch, then the ripe olives will fall off and are collected under the tree in a cloth [translation of R. Saadiah Gaon]. The root פאר appears only here in the meaning “to glean”; usually it means “to appear in splendor”. The first meaning reappears in the nouns פֻּארָה “crown of the tree”, פֹֹּארוֹת “tree branch”. Rebbi Jonah identifies first and second meanings, and reads: “Do not remove its splendor.” Then he compares the splendor of the tree, פֻּארָה, to the splendor of one’s head, the hair, that in the second verse also is called peah; hence it follows that the remaining olives on the tree have the status of peah and go under its rules. Accordingly, the rules of peah apply both for olive trees and vines.? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated²⁵⁶By the principle בנין אב משני כתובים “principle established by two verses”. If two necessary verses establish a common consequence, it will apply in general to all cases that are covered by their common antecedents (unless explicitly negated by another verse.) If the verses are partially overlapping in content, the principle is denied by some. The next paragraph will establish that there is no overlap in content in the case under consideration.. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah²⁵⁷This would exclude rice, peas, etc., which are explicitly included in the Mishnah (and would include figs).. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this²⁵⁴The entire verse reads: “If you harvest your vineyard, you should not go back to pluck the single berries; it should be for the convert, the orphan, and the widow.” The definition of a single berry is given in Mishnah Peah 7:4. The question is about the meaning of the word עוֹלל “to go over it a second time”. The root עלל means “go over a second time, do anything a second time.” In Arabic, علل means “to harvest fruits a second time”. For example, עלילה means doing something following a well thought-out plan. Rebbi Jonah reads the verse in Lamentations as: “May all their evil come before You and may You repeatedly punish them, just as You repeatedly punished me for all my sins.” One is not allowed to go over the vines a second time after one has harvested the bunched grapes; that is the equivalent of peah for vines, (מתעלל is usually translated “to abuse, to mistreat,” it should be taken to mean “to mistreat repeatedly” with emphasis on the repetition of abuse.)? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this²⁵⁵The verse reads: “If you shake your olive tree, do not investigate every branch afterwards; it should be for the convert, the orphan and the widow.” The way of harvesting olives for pressing oil is to shake every branch, then the ripe olives will fall off and are collected under the tree in a cloth [translation of R. Saadiah Gaon]. The root פאר appears only here in the meaning “to glean”; usually it means “to appear in splendor”. The first meaning reappears in the nouns פֻּארָה “crown of the tree”, פֹֹּארוֹת “tree branch”. Rebbi Jonah identifies first and second meanings, and reads: “Do not remove its splendor.” Then he compares the splendor of the tree, פֻּארָה, to the splendor of one’s head, the hair, that in the second verse also is called peah; hence it follows that the remaining olives on the tree have the status of peah and go under its rules. Accordingly, the rules of peah apply both for olive trees and vines.? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated²⁵⁶By the principle בנין אב משני כתובים “principle established by two verses”. If two necessary verses establish a common consequence, it will apply in general to all cases that are covered by their common antecedents (unless explicitly negated by another verse.) If the verses are partially overlapping in content, the principle is denied by some. The next paragraph will establish that there is no overlap in content in the case under consideration.. But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah²⁵⁷This would exclude rice, peas, etc., which are explicitly included in the Mishnah (and would include figs).. The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

It was stated⁴⁹Tosephta 2:3, Babli Roš Haššanah 9b, Masekhet Semaḥot end of Chap. 2. A parallel of this and the following paragraph is in Roš Haššanah 1:2 (fol. 57a).: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year⁵⁰For the prohibition of orlah the first three years and the obligation to redeem the fruits in the fourth year, Lev. 19:23–24. This is spelled out in the Tosephta-Babli version. Mishnah Roš Haššanah declares the first of Tishre to be the start of a new year for saplings, i. e., for the rules of orlah. and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said⁵¹This clause, which makes the statement unchangeable practice, is not in the Tosephta-Babli version., the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.⁵²The New Year for tithes from trees, Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:2.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 19:24): “And in the year.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Zeïra said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years they shall be uncircumcised for you, and in the [fourth] year.⁵³The fourth year may be, or must be, included in the three years of orlah. This applies only to the special case considered here (interpretation of Maimonides) or in all cases (R. Zeraḥiah Halevi, R. Nissim Gerondi). The text in Roš Haššanah 1:2 mentions the fourth year explicitly.”

It was stated⁴⁹Tosephta 2:3, Babli Roš Haššanah 9b, Masekhet Semaḥot end of Chap. 2. A parallel of this and the following paragraph is in Roš Haššanah 1:2 (fol. 57a).: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year⁵⁰For the prohibition of orlah the first three years and the obligation to redeem the fruits in the fourth year, Lev. 19:23–24. This is spelled out in the Tosephta-Babli version. Mishnah Roš Haššanah declares the first of Tishre to be the start of a new year for saplings, i. e., for the rules of orlah. and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said⁵¹This clause, which makes the statement unchangeable practice, is not in the Tosephta-Babli version., the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.⁵²The New Year for tithes from trees, Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:2.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 19:24): “And in the year.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Zeïra said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years they shall be uncircumcised for you, and in the [fourth] year.⁵³The fourth year may be, or must be, included in the three years of orlah. This applies only to the special case considered here (interpretation of Maimonides) or in all cases (R. Zeraḥiah Halevi, R. Nissim Gerondi). The text in Roš Haššanah 1:2 mentions the fourth year explicitly.”

Samuel stated, the sanctification of the New Moon is only by ten {attendants}¹⁰³In Sanhedrin1:2 (Note 120) this is quoted as Amoraic statement of Samuel. It is not the determination of the day of the New Moon, which can be made by a competent court of three, but the solemn declaration of the start of a new month.. ¹⁰⁴Gen. rabba 91(1). Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here community, and it is said there, how long this bad community. Since “community” mentioned there are ten, so also “community” mentioned here are ten¹⁰⁵Lev. 19:2 reads, speak to the community of Israel, you shall be holy. From this one wants to prove that all matters called “holy” need a community of at least ten adult males. Since the ten bad scouts are called a “bad community” in Num. 14:17, it follows that in Pentateuchal usage a group is called “community” if it has 10 members. Since we do not find the expression used for a smaller number, 10 is the required minimum. Babli 23b.. Rebbi Simon said, it is said here, in midst, and it is said there¹⁰⁶Gen. 42:5., the sons of Israel came to buy in midst of the comers. Since “in midst” mentioned there are ten, so also “in midst” mentioned here are ten¹⁰⁷Here the reference is to Lev22:32: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel. One intends to prove that God may be sanctified by any group of at least 10 of the Children of Israel.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, if you infer from “in midst”, there are many¹⁰⁸There are two possible interpretations of this statement. Since Lev22:32 is the conclusion of statements about the Temple service, it may refer to all the people and therefore require a minimum of 600’000 people, or it may refer to the large number of times the lexeme “in the midst” is used in the Pentateuch, from which nothing can be inferred.. [But it is said here “the sons of Israel”, and it is said there “the sons of Israel”. Since there are ten, also here are ten.¹⁰⁹The word “Cohen” is mentioned 3 times in Lev. 27:8, 2 times each in vv. 14,14, and once in vv. 11,21,23, for a total of 10.]

Samuel said, capers are forbidden because of skins⁸⁸If the caper bush is not yet in its fourth year, the fruits are forbidden for any use. Samuel and Rav hold that the calix which remains attached to the fruit will become forbidden with the fruit.. It was stated so: (Lev. 19:23) “You shall treat as foreskin the foreskin of its fruit;” anything which envelopes the fruit. Rav commanded those of the House of Ati, Rav Hamnuna commanded the colleagues: Tell your wives that when they come to preserve capers to throw away the calix. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra explained to me that all skins grow with the fruit but there, the fruit is on top and the skins below⁸⁹The opinion of the Galilean academies is that the atrophied remainder of the calix is not a shell in the legal sense, or a part of the fruit, and therefore not forbidden the first three years. In the Babli, Berakhot 37b, the same conclusion is reached..

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind¹³³Also in Ma‘ser Šeni 4:7 (fol. 55b), Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2 (fol. 9c-d), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a. In the Babli, the statement is restricted to large gifts.. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?¹³⁴This cryptic statement is explained in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a: “Why does the verse mention ‘a just epha and a just hin’? Is not a hin a part of an epha, how can one have correct measures for one and not the other? One takes biblical hîn as rabbinic hēn ‘yes’. That your yes should be a yes and your no a no, the same in your mind and your mouth.”” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind¹³⁵This is taken as a legal statement; at the end it will be accepted as a moral precept only.. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “¹³⁶Tosephta Qiddušin 1:8, Baba Batra 5:2; Yerushalmi Qiddušin 1:4 (fol. 60b), Giṭṭin 8:1 (fol. 49b); Babli Baba Batra 85a. Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted¹³⁷Things deposited on a persons’s real estate are his property as soon as he has the right to them.; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this¹³⁸Why should he not change his mind since there was no acquisition and no money given?? One is if he was standing with him¹³⁹In this provisional answer, it is only asserted that the promise of a gift to another person is binding. But the question remains, why should it be binding if there was no acquisition, which could only be effected by removing the gift from the donor’s property?, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt¹⁴⁰In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 48b, the story is told of R. Ḥiyya bar Josef, who appeared before R. Joḥanan.; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety¹⁴¹In the Babli, loc.cit., Rav holds that a surety gives a claim for the value of the surety while R. Joḥanan holds that a surety establishes a claim for the entire lot in question. The version of the story here implies that Rav was the judge. or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so¹⁴²For his own gifts he establishes the rule that a gift is unchangeable, for commercial transactions he says that they are reversible, even if that would be morally wrong.? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Abin said, the reason of the House of Shammai (Deut.24:19,20,21): “It shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow¹⁰¹Since there are three categories mentioned, each of them should have the possibility to get a separate piece..” The reason of the House of Hillel (Lev. 19:10): “For the poor and the stranger.” Rebbi Mana said, both of them explained the same verse, “it shall belong to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” The House of Shammai say, for the poor¹⁰²All three, as given by R. Abin., and the House of Hillel say, for the proprietor¹⁰³Since there is only one connective “and”, only two belong together. However, there are three categories of people entitled to collect gleanings and leftovers..

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it⁹⁵The defective coin which fails the standards of Mishnah 4.? In walled cities⁹⁶Greek χάραξ, χάρακος “palisade”. until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him⁹⁷If the person who handed out the defective coin recognizes that it is the coin given out illegally, he has a moral duty to take it back even when the legal period in which he can be forced to take it back has expired. If he refuses, the injured party has the right to complain (i. e., tell about the case to other people) but has no recourse in court.. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly⁹⁴In Temple times, Second Tithe produce was redeemed for coin which was spent on food in Jerusalem, to be eaten there in purity. Since the redemption is a transaction between a person and himself, occasionally deficient coins may be used since he knows the deficiency. But one may not collect deficient coins during the year and then use the collected coins for redemption (Ma‘aśer Šeni 2:7, Note 96).’⁹⁸After the destruction of the Temple and the disappearence of the ashes of the red cow (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 3) when food can no longer be eaten in purity, the coin has to be destroyed. For that purpose it even is preferable to use defective coins..
Cheating is by four oboli⁹⁹Mishnah 3., claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.. There are five peruṭot¹⁰¹The peruṭah appears as minimal standard in five legal categories.: Confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth¹⁰²Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1.; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media¹⁰⁴Mishnah Bava qamma 9:7..
There are five fifths¹⁰⁵Five cases in which a payment of 125% of the amount is due.: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe¹⁰⁶If he eats in error, Mishnah Terumot 6:1; Lev. 22:14, Num. 18:26., or heave of the tithe of demay¹⁰⁷This only applies to demay(produce of which it is not known whether it was tithed), but not to the heave of its tithe; Mishnah Demay 1:2, Note 67., or ḥallah¹⁰⁸Num. 15:20., or first fruits¹⁰⁹Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1., adds a fifth¹¹⁰All these cases are considered identical since each of them is called “heave” in a verse.. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year¹¹¹Lev.19:24, 27:31. or his Second Tithe¹¹²Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:5; Deut.14:25., adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth¹¹³Lev. 27:19.. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth¹¹⁴Lev. 5:24..

MISHNAH: One who shaves a bald spot on his head⁴⁰Lev. 21:5, Deut. 14:1., and who shaves off his sideburns, and who shaves off the corners of his beard,⁴¹Lev. 19:27. and one who scratches one scratch for a deceased is liable. If he scratched one scratch for five deceased, or five scratches for one deceased, he is liable for each single one⁴²Since Lev. 19:28 forbids a single scratch for a single deceased.; for the head two, one for each side; for the beard two on each side and one for the chin⁴³The five corners of a beard are: near the ear on each side, the cheekbone on each side, and the chin.. Rebbi Eleazar⁴⁴Most sources read: R. Eliezer. says, if he removed all at once he is liable only once. He is liable only if he took them off with a razor; Rebbi Eleazar says, even if he took them off with pincers or a plane.

HALAKHAH: It was stated¹⁰³In a different form, Tosephta Maäser Šeni 5:17. The entire discussion is found in Yerushalmi Maäser Šeni 5:3.: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year¹⁰⁴Since there is no private property of agricultural produce in the Sabbatical year, there may not be special uses for the farmer’s family., so there is no fourth year after planting¹⁰⁵The Mishnah speaks of כרם רבעי, a vineyard in its fourth year. The baraitot all speak of נטע רבעי, a planting (a planted tree) in its fourth year. The extension of the Biblical commandment about the vineyard to all trees is discussed in Maäser Šeni, Chap. 5. in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said¹⁰⁶The First Fruits, for which the praises said in the Temple are spelled out in Deut. 26.. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner¹⁰⁷The mourner in the period between the death of a close relative and the burial, when he is forbidden any sanctified food even if he is not ritually defiled, Deut. 26:14.? It is stated: This¹⁰⁸The verse declaring the vineyard of the fourth year as “holy for praises.” Cf. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #9. implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal¹⁰⁹The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Simeon who states in Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2 that First Fruits and the vineyard of the fourth year are not subject to either kind of removal.. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground¹¹⁰This question is not answered. The Tosefta Maäser Šeni 5:19 states categorically that there can be no redemption while the grapes are still on the vine. However, see in Tosefta Kifšutah Maäser Šeni p. 786 the list of authorities who claim that this is only the required procedure, but that a redemption, if done on the vine, is valid after the fact.?

HALAKHAH: “Somebody sent his son to a grocer,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for the tenths he has to let bend down a handbreadth¹⁰¹In the Babli, 88b, R. Abba bar Mamal explains that the bending down of the scales should correspond to 1/10 of a pound for every 10 pounds, or 1%.. It is written¹⁰²Lev. 19:36.: “Fair scales, fair weights.” From here¹⁰³It is not from here but from Deut. 25:15: “A full and fair weightstone you shall have, a full and fair ephah you shall have, that your days be prolonged on the land which the Eternal, your God, gives to you.” the Sages said that any commandment whose reward is noted, the court is not warned about. “You shall have,¹⁰⁴Deut. 25:15; in Lev. 19:36 the plural is used, יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. It is a generally accepted talmudic principle of interpretation that a commandment formulated in the plural is addressed to every individual. In Lev. 19:36, the verse ends: I am the Eternal, your God, I Who took you out from the land of Egypt, on which Sifra Qedošim Pereq8(10) notes: “On condition that you accept the obligation of fair measures, for every person who accepts the obligation of fair measures confirms the Exodus, and everyone who violates the obligation of fair measures negates the Exodus.” But commandments in the singular are considered as commandments in the collective, addressed to the community.” appoint market overseers¹⁰⁵Greek ἀγορανόμος. In Demay2:1 (23c l. 26, Note 22) the transliteration is אגורנימום. over this¹⁰⁶Babli 89a, Sifry Deut. 294. This inference clearly contradicts the prior statement that oversight over measures is not a public duty.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, so is the baraita: Any commandment whose reward is noted the court is not punished about. Rav was appointed market overseer by the Head of the Diaspora¹⁰⁷Over Jewish markets in Babylonia.; he intervened about measuring vessels but not prices¹⁰⁸In the Roman Empire, price control was introduced by Diocletian. But Rav was trained in Galilee under the Severans, almost a century before Diocletian. In Demay also, control of prices is described as an anomaly.. The Head of the Diaspora jailed him. Rav Qarna went to see him and said, the market overseer about whom they spoke was for measures but not prices. He answered, but you had stated: the market overseer is for both measures and prices¹⁰⁹In the Babli, 89a, it is reported that Qarna taught this against the explicit instructions of Samuel; and that in consequence a horn grew on his forehead for which he was called Qarna.. He said to him, go out and tell them, the market overseer is for measures but not prices. He went out and said to them, a person who teaches hidden things they send to jail!

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then¹¹¹If it is profane food. The rest of the paragraph is identical with the previous one except for the insertion of את ההלל missing here in the first version (but found in Maäser Šeni 5:3). should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

⁷²This paragraph and the following almost to the end of the Halakhah have a slightly more complete parallel in Šabbat 7:2 (9c l.62–9d l.59). Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said^73,In Šabbat, there is here a sentence connecting the text to the preceding discussion, not applicable here. This shows that the text here is not a mechanical copy of the text in Šabbat.⁷⁴One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general class was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire class.” In Šabbat, R. Abun bar Hiyya is reported here to have stated that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. (As a statement of R. Johanan see below, Notes 95 ff.).: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells⁷⁵Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples of the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation⁷⁶To use witchcraft is a capital crime as indicated in the Mishnah; in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah 19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail⁷⁷The wording might be slightly misleading. There is a hermeneutical principle (#5 on R. Ismael’s list) which states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. This presupposes that both general expression and details are in the same paragraph. For example, Lev. 1:2 describes sacrificial animals as animals, cattle, sheep, or goats. In the context, “animals” means “cattle, sheep, and goats”. In the discussion here, the details are mentioned in paragraphs other than the one describing the general category. Then one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately., as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated⁷⁸Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev. 18, whether or not they are criminally punishable., etc. Was not his sister included in the general class⁷⁹The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover⁸⁰A misquote from Lev. 18:7,8. It seems that in G the verses were quoted correctly. It is incorrect also in Šabbat. It seems from the context that the text in G is a learned scribe’s correction of the original which, however, did not refer to Lev. 18:7,8 but to Lev. 20:19: The nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for his close relative he touched, their sin they have to carry. Cf. Babli Yebamot 54a.? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching⁸¹Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. But is it not written⁸²Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19.: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it⁸³In G and Šabbat: “Therefore, it was necessary to say that he is liable for each one,” cf. Note 71. It is possible to justify the addition by noting that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest.. But is it not written⁸⁴Lev. 20:20.: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction⁸⁵In Šabbat there is a reference here to Lev. 20:21. This also is missing in G, showing that the text here is secondary to that in Šabbat, since Lev. 20:20 says they shall die destroyed whereas v. 21 notes they shall be destroyed. The difference is explained in the following statement by R. Yudan. The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses., as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.

I could think that somebody who redeems a vineyard outside the Land would return, the verse says¹⁷⁰Deut. 20:6.: “And he did not redeem it”. In case one is commanded to redeem it¹⁷¹In Lev. 19:23, the duty of redemption is clearly restricted to the Promised Land.; this excludes where there is no commandment to redeem. It was stated¹⁷²Also quoted in the Babli, 43b. R. Eliezer ben Jacob rejects the extension of the exemption from combat duty given in the Mishnah.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one only understands “vineyard”. And similarly, one only understands “planted”. It was stated: “And he did not redeem it¹⁷⁰Deut. 20:6.”, that excludes him who sinks or grafts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rav Ḥisda said, this is everybody’s opinion if he grafted fruits of sin¹⁷³Since reciting a benediction over any forbidden fruit is blasphemy (Ḥallah 1:9, 58a line 53; Babli Baba qama 94a), it is obvious that since an orchard of kilaim cannot be redeemed, the person who planted it cannot be exempted.. Where do we hold?¹⁷⁴What kind of grafting entitles a man to leave the war zone following the Mishnah but not R. Eliezer ben Jacob? If he grafted a fruit tree on another fruit tree of a different kind; these are fruits of sin¹⁷⁵These are unquestionably forbidden kilaim.. But if he grafted a fruit tree on a futile tree, as if it were its own kind, he is planting anew¹⁷⁶The stump of the futile tree is simply considered as earth; according to everybody grafting on such a stem is the same as planting in the earth.. But we hold if he grafted a black fig tree on a white one¹⁷⁷This is permitted; the owner returns following the Mishnah but not R. Eliezer ben Jacob. A “black” fig is a purple one; a “white” fig is green..

It was stated¹⁸⁶Lev. 19:24 declares all fourth-year fruit holy; implying that it must be redeemed. The next verse notes that the rules for the first four years were given so the tree should increase its yield starting from the fifth year. The word yield is taken in Sifra Qedošim Paraša 3(10) to mean that the duty of redemption in the fourth year starts at the point in the ripening of the fruit at which in the fifth year the duty of tithing starts (Ma‘serot 1:2); in the case of grapes if there is some sap in the fruit. The two sources seem to contradict one another but Maimonides (Ma‘aser Šeni 9:2) adopts both of them.: You redeem fruit; you do not redeem either unripe grapes or unripe figs. Rebbi Zavida instructed about unripe dates that they should be buried¹⁸⁷He holds that they cannot be eaten since they cannot be redeemed; they have to be treated like a firstling which died before it could be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jonah asked: If he transgressed and redeemed them, is it not redeemed? And you want to say, it needs to be buried!

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption¹¹²If the produce cannot be bodily transported to the place of the Temple. The argument is quoted in Babli Berakhot 35a. The word פדיון “redemption” is missing in the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print; it has been added from the parallel text in Maäser Šeni.? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from identifying ה and ח.¹¹³In all Jewish dialects except Eastern European Ashkenazic, ח (ḥ) is very close to הּ. In Medieval German Jewish, as well in Talmudic Babylonian Jewish, h and ḥ were identical and חַ ,הַּ were used as rhyming sounds. The current Ashkenazic identification of the sounds of ח,כ (ḥ, k) comes from the fact that Polish has only one ch sound; this was adopted by the Jews from their Gentile surroundings. While Biblical Hebrew probably had the two Semitic ח sounds, corresponding to Arabic خ، ح, one ḥ as in יצחק Isaac (Septuagint Ισαακ), the other k as in רחל Rachel (Septuagint Ραχηλ), in Mishnaic times these distinctions had disappeared long ago.

When does he redeem it¹⁷⁸In Lev. 19, v. 24 states that in the fourth year after planting, “all fruit shall be holy” as quoted in this paragraph. This is considered a burden rather than a joy. V. 25 permits the fruits of the fifth and later years without any restriction.? In the fourth or the fifth [year]? It seems reasonable in the fifth, since in the fourth it costs him money. But the rabbis of Caesarea say, it is only reasonable in the fourth, since it is written¹⁷⁹Lev. 19:24. Because of the disappearence of gutturals, the word הילולים is interpreted as חילולים, cf. Peah 7:6, Notes 112–113; Babli Berakhot 35a.: “And in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy for praise to the Eternal.”

Rebbi Phineas asked¹⁴⁵Here starts the discussion of the last case of the Mishnah, if part of the field was dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple.: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated¹⁴⁶As explained in the Mishnah, if the field is sold by the Temple officials with the crop still standing., so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land¹⁴⁷Under any circumstance..

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield¹³⁴This verse following the one which declares the yield of the fourth year of a new vineyard “holy for praises” reads: “But in the fifth year, you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield to you.” Hence, the harvest is directly given to the owner of the vineyard. Also, “increase” presupposes prior yield for the owner..” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property¹³⁵This may refer to the earlier statement of R. Jehudah that the status of the yield of the fourth year is derived from the laws of Second Tithe and, as private property, is subject to the rules of single berries and gleanings. It also may refer to Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8 where R. Jehudah states that Second Tithe when wilfully and illegally diverted to profane use, such as bridal money to acquire a wife, becomes valid private property and the marriage is contracted, but if the same act was done in error, without intent to change the status of the Tithe, the Second Tithe remains holy, does not become profane, and the marriage is not contracted., so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

MISHNAH: A vineyard that produces only gleanings, Rebbi Eliezer says, they are for the proprietor, Rebbi Aqiba says, for the poor. Rebbi Eliezer said (Deut. 24:21): “When you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it.” If there is no vintage, where are the gleanings? Rebbi Aqiba told him (Lev. 19:10): “Do not take gleanings from your vineyard,” even if it is all gleanings. If that is so, why does it say “when you gather your grapes … do not take the gleanings after it;” the poor have no right to the gleanings¹⁴⁶Nor to enter the vineyard before the time of the harvest. The grapes might still grow to sit one row on top of the other so that at harvest time they are no longer gleanings. before the vintage.

MISHNAH: One who writes a tattoo. If he designed but did not tattoo, or tattooed but did not design, he is not liable until he design and permanently color with ink of kohl or anything that leaves a mark. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says, only if the writes the Name, as it is said⁴⁵Lev. 19:28. Tattooing has two parts: making a scratch and coloring it with permanent color. It is not too clear which name is intended., a tattoo design you shall not put on yourselves, I am the Eternal.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field¹¹²Lev. 19:9, 23:22, speaking of peah.” and it says about kilaim “your field¹¹³Lev. 19:19: “Your field you shall not sow with two different kinds.” It is assumed that a word in the Books of Moses never changes its meaning.”. Just as “your field” mentioned there¹¹⁴Mishnah Kilaim 2:10 states that two fields of different crops become forbidden if planted too closely one to the other but only if they are the minimum size of bet rova‘. means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two¹¹⁵Mishnah 6:5 states that a forgotten sheaf is for the poor only if it is less in volume than two seah. Similarly, Mishnah 6:6 states that a forgotten part of the field is not for the poor if its yield is at least 2 seah. Rebbi Joshua seems to argue that anything that is not a field for the definition of leqeṭ (collecting grain forgotten be the farmer) and šiḵḥah(collecting forgotten sheaves) cannot be a field for the definition of peah since all three obligations always go together., so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch¹¹⁶In Mishnah Kilaim 3:1, the standard vegetable patch for intensive cultivation is defined as being one square cubit. R. Eliezer either is of the opinion that no vegetables are grown for storage or that onions grown for storage are such a rare case that one may take grain fields as the standard for everything. R. Ṭarphon seems to think that the smallest plot used to grow any plant for storage is the standard for all crops.. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount¹¹⁷R. Joshua ben Bathyra argues that the verse: “When you harvest the harvest of your land,” means all kinds of harvest and that therefore any plot which can be harvested is subject to peah. The question is only whether the harvest has to be professional or whether simple plucking is enough. The verse from Psalms is taken to mean that only a cut that will fill at least the hollow of one’s hand qualifies for “harvesting.” This argument is the base of the first discussion in Halakhah 1:1.? Since it is written (Ps. 132:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field¹¹²Lev. 19:9, 23:22, speaking of peah.” and it says about kilaim “your field¹¹³Lev. 19:19: “Your field you shall not sow with two different kinds.” It is assumed that a word in the Books of Moses never changes its meaning.”. Just as “your field” mentioned there¹¹⁴Mishnah Kilaim 2:10 states that two fields of different crops become forbidden if planted too closely one to the other but only if they are the minimum size of bet rova‘. means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two¹¹⁵Mishnah 6:5 states that a forgotten sheaf is for the poor only if it is less in volume than two seah. Similarly, Mishnah 6:6 states that a forgotten part of the field is not for the poor if its yield is at least 2 seah. Rebbi Joshua seems to argue that anything that is not a field for the definition of leqeṭ (collecting grain forgotten be the farmer) and šiḵḥah(collecting forgotten sheaves) cannot be a field for the definition of peah since all three obligations always go together., so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch¹¹⁶In Mishnah Kilaim 3:1, the standard vegetable patch for intensive cultivation is defined as being one square cubit. R. Eliezer either is of the opinion that no vegetables are grown for storage or that onions grown for storage are such a rare case that one may take grain fields as the standard for everything. R. Ṭarphon seems to think that the smallest plot used to grow any plant for storage is the standard for all crops.. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount¹¹⁷R. Joshua ben Bathyra argues that the verse: “When you harvest the harvest of your land,” means all kinds of harvest and that therefore any plot which can be harvested is subject to peah. The question is only whether the harvest has to be professional or whether simple plucking is enough. The verse from Psalms is taken to mean that only a cut that will fill at least the hollow of one’s hand qualifies for “harvesting.” This argument is the base of the first discussion in Halakhah 1:1.? Since it is written (Ps. 132:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

Ten commandments does a person fulfill before he eats a piece of bread: Do not plough²⁴⁷“With ox and donkey together”, Deut. 22:10., do now sow²⁴⁸“Your field do not sow as kilaim”, Lev. 25:4., do not muzzle²⁴⁹“Your ox while threshing”, Deut. 25:4., gleanings²⁵⁰Lev. 19:9., forgotten sheaves²⁵¹Deut. 24:14., and peah²⁵²This paragraph is a truncated quote from Ma‘aser Šeni Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” …, heave, first tithe, second tithe, and ḥallah. Before Rebbi Isaac went to dinner, he spread out his ten fingers and said, I kept ten commandments.

‘When R. Eliezer was dying’, etc. As it is written, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.²³Lev. 19, 18. Although you have been told, ‘Love your neighbour’, when you stand before your Master set aside your honour.²⁴i.e. be humble. V should be emended to יקרבו. The question was asked: When one is greeted while engaged in reciting the Tefillah, is it permissible to return the salutation? Even the salutation of a king it is forbidden to return,²⁵Cf. Ber. 30b (Sonc. ed., p. 187). but in the case of the Shema‘ he returns the salutation when [the king] comes early to his door.²⁶Cf. ibid. 14a (Sonc. ed., p. 81). The meaning is doubtful. Perhaps the intention is to state an extreme case. Should the king come to the house of a subject early, indicating most important business, when the latter is reciting the Shema‘, the greeting may be returned.

MISHNAH: ⁴⁶Mishnah Nazir 6:4. If a nazir was drinking wine a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not drink, do not drink, if then he drinks he is liable for every single occasion.
⁴⁷Mishnah Nazir 6:6. If he was defiling himself with corpses a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not defile yourself, do not defile yourself, if then he defiles himself he is liable for every single occasion.
⁴⁸Mishnah Nazir 6:5. If he was shaving a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not shave, do not shave, if then he shaves he is liable for every single occasion.
If he was dressed in kilaim a whole day long, he is liable only once⁴⁹Lev. 19:19. Cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim.. If one told him, do not dress, do not dress, and he took off and put on, he is liable for every single occasion.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. ⁹⁶Ševi`it 10:9 Notes 133–134; Giṭtin 6:1 Note 39, Bava meṣi`a 4:2 Note 49; Babli Bava meṣi`a49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7). Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did He not say “a true yes”⁹⁷Lev. 19:36. The pun identifies the measure הִין with the Aramaic equivalent הֵן of the Hebrew כֵּן “yes”. It shows that -ֵ was pronounced like -ִי (Itacistic η = ῖ). The verse is read as exhortation to be honest in business dealings.? At the moment when he said it, it was a true yes.

It was stated: From where that one may not graft a tree bearing no edible fruit onto a fruit-bearing tree, or a fruit-bearing tree onto another fruit-bearing tree of a kind that is not his own kind, from where? The verse says (Lev. 19:19): “You must keep My basic Laws¹²²The verse reads: “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you shall not breed kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, and kilaim cloth, šʻṭnz, shall not come onto you.” It is concluded (Sifra Qedošim 4:13–18) that the rules of all three cases are parallel to one another..” Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar¹²³The Amora. R. Eleazar mentioned next is R. Eleazar ben Shamua, the Tanna., in the name of Cahana: This is Rebbi Eleazar’s, “because of the basic Laws I gave.”¹²⁴The Tanna R. Eleazar states in Tosephta Avodah Zarah 8:8 and Babli Sanhedrin 56b that mating two different kinds or grafting two different kinds are activities forbidden in the Law of Nature given to Adam and Noah. He holds that the reference to חוֹק, “basic law,” here is to the Law of Creation, where all living things were created “in their kinds.” In the Tosephta and the Babli, he is alone in his opinion. If this is so, it was forbidden to Adam, the first man¹²⁵This is the opinion of R. Eleazar; why is he alone in that opinion? The Sages hold that the laws of kilaim were given at Sinai only to the Jewish people. It is not sinful for a Gentile to cross-breed species.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La, it is the opinion of everybody, because of the basic Laws that I gave to My world¹²⁶This is the position of the anonymous Tanna in Sifra Qedōšīm(4:14): “Not only your animals with your animals, your animals with the animals of a Gentile, the animals of a Gentile with your animals, Gentile animals with Gentile animals; the verse reads: You must keep my basic Laws.” If Gentiles were exempt, their animals could not be included in the prohibition. R. Eleazar will agree that sowing a field with two different kinds, and wearing clothing made from wool and linen together are prohibitions addressed only to Jews. Only kilaim connected to the story of Creation are obligations of Gentiles.. If it is so, is should be forbidden to graft a black fig tree on a white¹²⁷Not really white, but rather light green. fig tree. Rebbi Avin said, did you not infer the rules from kilaim of textiles? Just as for kilaim of textiles two kinds, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind¹²⁸But yarns of different color, or from different strains of flax, may be made into one garment. Similarly, different varieties of the same species may be mated or grafted., also any other kilaim that I forbade you, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind.

So far it only is written, “do not mate your animals kilaim.” Birds from where¹³⁴How do we know that they fall under the prohibition of kilaim?? Some Tannaim state from (Lev. 19:19): “You must keep My basic Laws¹³⁵As explained above, birds were also created למיניהם and hence may not be artificially crossed with other kinds.,” some state from: “your animals¹³⁶It was established earlier (Note 107) that for the Sabbath, kilaim, etc., “animal” includes wildlife and birds. you shall not mate kilaim.” If somebody grafted a tree and mated birds¹³⁷Simultaneously. Sins committed at different times are certainly punishable separately. It is always understood that breeding of birds and grafting of trees, etc., refer to forbidden acts and not to legitimate breeding or grafting., following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty of two offenses¹³⁸In this paragraph, “him” refers to one of the Tannaïm just quoted.
All commentators emend the text and switch “one offense” and “two offenses” between the two cases in order to make sense of the statement. However, since the Rome ms. confirms the text, such an emendation is unacceptable.
The verse, “you must keep My basic Laws; your animals you shall not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, and kilaim cloth, ša’aṭnez, shall not come onto you,” contains three separate prohibitions (mating, sowing, cloth) and one general one. The introductory clause is a general statement which expresses a general prohibition, but since it expresses a general principle (לאו שבכלות) it does not define a prosecutable criminal offense. The count of offenses in our text does not refer to morality or to the view of Heaven unknown to us, but to human jurisdiction. If birds are included because of the legal importance of the story of Creation, the perpetrator committed two crimes simultaneously, transgressing the first two of the prohibitions, and has to be punished accordingly. If birds are included only because of an extensive interpretation of בהמה, the prohibition is not explicitly Biblical and not punishable in court. Hence, for the second position, while two sins were committed, only one of them is subject to sanction by the court., according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim,” he is guilty only of one offense. When he mated animals and birds, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty only of one offense¹³⁹Since he simultaneously transgressed the same prohibition in two instances.; according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim,” he is guilty of two offenses¹⁴⁰An original one, mating domestic animals in a forbidden way, and a secondary one for birds. Since he transgressed the Biblical commandment, the secondary transgression is also punishable..

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him¹⁵⁸There is no such verse in Scripture. The consensus of the commentators is that it should read: (Ps. 82:3) “Do justice for the poor and needy.” One does justice in also giving him the gifts that are in doubt.” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend¹⁵⁹The judge may not say: His opponent has deep pockets; let me rule for the poor; then he will need no public assistance., but you may bend for him in his gifts¹⁶⁰To rule for him also in doubtful cases.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he¹⁶¹The poor acquires as his right, not as a possibility as in the previous argument. acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own¹⁶²The term “abandon” first refers to the gifts that belong to the poor as of right; the second mention in the same verse refers to the doubtful cases when one has to renounce his rights; a similar argument is found in Sifra Qedošim 2:7. The same applies for the triple expression quoted by R. La. It is clear from here that Practice has to follow R. Meïr; this is also the decision of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 4:9).. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers¹⁶⁴The rabbinic decree. to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds¹⁶⁵Any vegetable kilaim except those growing in a vineyard. are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden¹⁶⁶By biblical law. In the Babli, Qiddušin 39a, this is the opinion of Samuel but practice follows what here is Samuel’s opinion.. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there¹⁶⁷Galilee., they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (Lev. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws¹⁶⁸Cf. Kilaim 1, Notes 122,124., your animals you should not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, …, ša‘aṭnez¹⁶⁹Cloth woven from wool and linen. shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land¹⁵⁷Mishnah Qiddušin 1:9. The parallel discussion is in the Babli, Qiddušin 38a/b., so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of the Omnipresent. [It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.] Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in him.

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season¹⁸³One may not offer to exchange agricultural work against agricultural work if these would represent vastly different expenditures if they needed hired hands..
Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y¹⁸⁴To let the debtor take care of the guest for the creditor..
The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,¹⁸⁷Lev. 25:37.” and “do not take from him,¹⁸⁸Lev. 25:36” and “do not be a creditor,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “do not burden him with interest,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.¹⁹⁰Lev. 19:14. While the preceding verses spell out the guilt of the parties, this verse explains the guilt of the scribe, who is supposedly learned in the law and has to know that he participates in an illegal activity. The extended interpretation of Lev. 19:14 is one of the signs of pharisaic doctrine; it is intimated that the Sadducees, the opponents of the Sages, would absolve the scribe from guilt.”

HALAKHAH: “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.⁸⁸Ex. 19:13.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey⁸⁹Ex. 22:3, the penalty for the thief found with livestock.”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them⁹⁰Deut. 22:1..” Unloading, “do remove⁹¹Ex.. 23:5..” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing⁹²Deut. 25:4..” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed kilaim⁹³Lev. 19:19..” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest⁹⁴Ex. 23:12..”

The Torah is greater than the priesthood and kingship, inasmuch as kingship [is acquired] in the form of thirty distinctions, the priesthood in [the form of] twenty-four, but the Torah in [the form of] forty-eight, viz.: by sedateness, [knowledge of] Scripture, good manners, moderation in sleep, moderation in conversation, moderation in business, moderation in hilarity, moderation in pleasure, moderation in intercourse with the world, patience, goodness of heart, confidence in the wise, resignation under affliction, study, the faculty of hearing,³⁰i.e. being attentive. ordered presentation [of one’s subject-matter] with one’s lips,³¹He rehearses aloud the expositions which he had heard. understanding and discernment of heart,³²The first means coming to a conclusion by means of logical processes, and the other deep insight into the hidden intentions of the Torah. Cf. Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 84, n. 6. rising [out of respect],³³For the aged and the scholar; cf. Lev. 19, 32 and Ḳid. 32b (Sonc. ed., p. 159) where ‘rising’ is defined as a token of respect. reverence, wisdom, meekness, attendance upon scholars, painstaking examination³⁴Another reading is בדבוק חברים, ‘attachment to colleagues’. [of a subject] together with colleagues, keen discussion with pupils, knowing one’s place, rejoicing in one’s portion, making a fence to one’s words,³⁵He is mindful of what he says. Cf. Aboth I, 11 (Sonc. ed., p.7): ‘Ye Sages, be heedful of your words’. claiming no credit for oneself, loving the All-present, loving reproof, loving just courses, loving rectitude, keeping oneself far from [worldly] honour and not pursuing [worldly] honour, not priding oneself on one’s learning, not taking delight in giving decisions, bearing the yoke with one’s fellow-man, judging him in the scale of merit, guiding him to truth and peace, being deliberate in one’s study, asking questions and answering them, hearing and adding [to what he has heard], making one’s teacher wiser, concentrating upon one’s discourse, and repeating a statement in the name of him who made it. Hence you learn that whoever repeats a statement in the name of him who made it brings redemption into the world, as it is stated, And Esther told the king thereof in Mordecai’s name.³⁶Esth. 2, 22.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a bone was stuck in his throat he puts of the same kind on top of his head and this is not of ways of the Emorite²³³Addition of G which here becomes illegible.. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: you shall neither divine nor use incantations²²⁴Lev. 19:26.. Even through there is no divining there are signs, but only after three portents²²⁵If something happened to a person three times he may assume that he is prone to this kind of accident, as Jacob feared for Benjamin’s life because he already had lost a wife and two sons.; for example when I came from Padan, Rachel died on me²²⁶Gen. 48:7.; Joseph is no more, Simeon is no more, and you want to take Benjamin²²⁷Gen. 42:36., etc

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable¹⁰⁶These are valid versions of a summons to testify.. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable¹⁰⁷“Heaven” is not a sobriquet of God’s Name.. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names¹⁰⁸א-ד stands for Adonay, י-ה for YHWH. A substitute name is any translation of any Name of Attribute of God in any vernacular., they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable¹⁰⁹The crime of blasphemy (Lev. 24:15) refers only to blaspheming the Name (Sanhedrin 7:14).. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable¹¹⁰The same holds for cursing father and mother (Ex. 21:17).. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition¹¹¹Lev. 19:14; Sifra Qedošim Parashah 2(13).. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable¹¹²If the claimant says “may He not punish you if you come to testify”, or “may He bless you if you come to testify”, for R. Meїr this implies the opposite, i. e., “may he punish you if you do not come to testify” etc. but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable¹¹³For R. Jehudah, what has been said explicitly is the only thing that counts.
The Mishnah versions in the Babli and in the independent Mishnah mss. all read “but the Sages declare not liable.” It is clear from the Halakhah that this also was the reading in the Yerushalmi underlying the Halakhah since it was necessary to state that the Mishnah represents R. Jehudah’s opinion..

BARAITHA. A man should not send to his fellow a cask of water⁵⁰Instead of water it would be better to read ‘wine’ as in Ḥul. 94a (Sonc. ed., p. 528). There the story is related of a tragedy which followed as the consequence of such an act of deception. as oil.
GEMARA. What is the reason? It is forbidden to do anything which may give him offence; as it is written, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind.⁵¹Lev. 19, 14. The question was asked: May one send to a Gentile a thigh which has been cooked with the sinew?⁵²Contrary to the Law of Gen. 32, 33. It is obvious that [one may not send to a Gentile] a limb cut from a living animal, for the master said:⁵³Sanh. 56a (Sonc. ed., pp. 381f.). This is one of the seven Noachian laws. The sons of Noah⁵⁴i.e. non-Jews. were forbidden to eat a limb cut from a living animal; therefore [one who sent a Gentile meat with the sinew of the thigh would commit an offence] because of Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind. But here [with the sinew of the thigh] they were not [forbidden and a violation of the law would not arise]; or perhaps there is a difference between the two cases! Come and hear:^54a(54a) Ḥul. 93b (Sonc. ed., p. 525). A man may send to a Gentile a thigh wherein is the sinew.

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers³²⁶Lev. 19:31. Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah.. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums³²⁷Lev. 20:6., etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death³²⁸Lev. 20:27.. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut³²⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 mentions only the necromancer, not the medium.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b., etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment³³¹Cf. 5:3, Note 73. This formulation does not make any sense, as indicated by R. Zeˋira’s question. It should have been formulated: Because the medium is treated as an appendix to the necromancer. The medium never creates an obligation for a purification offering if one for necromancy already was established; he cannot be mentioned in Keritut_1:1 separately from the necromancer.. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b..

From where a warning for the one who curses father or mother? Everybody has to fear his mother and father³⁴⁶Lev. 19:3.. From where punishment and extirpation? And he who curses his father or mother shall be made to die the death³⁴⁷Ex. 21:17.. And it says, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^349,This text is also in Ketubot 3:9, explained there with a list of readings in Notes 126–135. The parallel in the Babli is 66b.¹³¹Lev. 18:29..

R. Isaac said: Slanderers are like shedders of blood, as it is stated, Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour.²²Lev. 19, 16. R. Eliezer said: He who hates his fellow belongs to the shedders of blood, as it is stated, If any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him, etc.²³Deut. 19, 11. Ben ‘Azzai said: He who hates his wife belongs to the shedders of blood, as it is stated, And if he lay wanton charges against her,²⁴ibid. XXII, 14. with the consequence that he hires [false] witnesses and has her hastily brought to the place of stoning.²⁵ibid. 21. R. Jose said: He who calculates the end²⁶i.e. the advent of the Messiah. has no portion in the World to Come.²⁷Because people will say that, since the predetermined time has arrived and the Messiah has not come, he will never come. Cf. Sanh. 97b (Sonc. ed., p. 659). He who hates Sages and their disciples, a false prophet and he who spreads calumny have no portion in the World to Come.

Hatred of Others. How so? This teaches that a person should not say: Love the sages, but hate the scholars; or: Love the scholars, but hate the common people. Rather, love all of them, but hate the heretics, the enticers, the bad influences, and the traitors. So, too, did David say (Psalms 139:21–22), “I will hate those who hate You, O Lord, and I will despise those who rise up against You. With the utmost hatred I will hate them. They will become my enemies.” But it also says (Leviticus 19:18), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Eternal.” [What is the reason? Because I] created him. So if he does well by you,²I.e., if he keeps the laws of your people. you should love him. And if not, you should not love him.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: This was meant as an great oath. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Eternal.” I created him, so if you love him, I can be relied upon to give you great reward. And if not, I am the judge who will punish you.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: When the people of Israel are in foreign lands, they worship idolatry without meaning to. How so? A Samaritan makes a party for his son. He sends out an invitation to all the Jews in his city. Even though they eat and drink their own food, and bring their own attendants who stand and pour for them, it is still considered as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead, as it says (Exodus 34:15), “They will call to you, and you will eat their sacrifices.”
Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i would say: Anyone who violates the Sabbath, scorns the festivals, disregards circumcision, or attempts to reveal the flaws of the Torah, even though he may be learned in Torah and have done many good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come.
Rabbi Akiva would say: Anyone who marries a woman who is not proper for him transgresses five commandments: “Do not take vengeance” (Leviticus 19:18), “Do not bear a grudge” (ibid.), “Do not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), “Love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), and “Let your brother live with you” (Leviticus 25:36). Because he will hate her he will want her to die, and this will cause fewer children to be born into the world.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: When the people of Israel are in foreign lands, they worship idolatry without meaning to. How so? A Samaritan makes a party for his son. He sends out an invitation to all the Jews in his city. Even though they eat and drink their own food, and bring their own attendants who stand and pour for them, it is still considered as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead, as it says (Exodus 34:15), “They will call to you, and you will eat their sacrifices.”
Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i would say: Anyone who violates the Sabbath, scorns the festivals, disregards circumcision, or attempts to reveal the flaws of the Torah, even though he may be learned in Torah and have done many good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come.
Rabbi Akiva would say: Anyone who marries a woman who is not proper for him transgresses five commandments: “Do not take vengeance” (Leviticus 19:18), “Do not bear a grudge” (ibid.), “Do not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), “Love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), and “Let your brother live with you” (Leviticus 25:36). Because he will hate her he will want her to die, and this will cause fewer children to be born into the world.

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar would say: Anyone who respects his friends only for their money, in the end will be sent away from them in disgrace. And anyone who disgraces his friends in order to fulfill a mitzvah, in the end will be sent away from them honorably.
How do we know that anyone who respects his friends only for their money, in the end will be sent away from them in disgrace? For this is what we find with Bil’am the wicked, who respected Balak for his money, as it says (Numbers 22:18), “And Bil’am answered, saying to Balak’s servants: If Balak gives me his house full of silver and gold.” And how do we know he was sent away in disgrace? For it says (Numbers 24:11), “Now, get out of here and go back to your own place…for the Eternal has denied you honor.”
And how do we know that anyone who disgraces his friends in order to fulfill a mitzvah, in the end will be sent away from them honorably? For this is what we find with Moses our teacher, who disgraces Pharaoh in order to fulfill a mitzvah, as it says (Exodus 11:8), “All of your servants shall come down and bow before me, saying.” Now, was Pharaoh up on a roof and was Moses down on the ground? No, what Moses meant was: Even if all your servants who stand up (and bow) before you on your platform were to get up and beg me, I would not listen to them. And how do we know he was sent away honorably? For it says (Numbers 33:3), “On the day after the Passover offering, the Israelites went out with a raised hand.”

MISHNA: One may not keep an animal in the inns [befundekaot] of gentiles because they are suspected of bestiality. Since even gentiles are prohibited from engaging in bestiality, a Jew who places his animal there is guilty of violating the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). And a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual relations. And any person may not seclude himself with gentiles because they are suspected of bloodshed.