Talmud sobre Números 18:36

HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure⁴For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared., even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible⁵The verse quoted refers to heaves of the tithe for grain and wine. For these, it is impossible to give Great Heave (Chapter 1, Note 64) from pure for impure since Great Heave is given only from earmarked produce; it is inferred that nowhere may one give heave from pure produce on impure.
The statement that abstract principles can be transferred from impossible to possible cases is not found in the Babli but Tosaphot refer to it several times to explain the background of talmudic reasoning (Beẓah 13b, s. v. כשם; Giṭṭin 30b, s. v. וכי; Menaḥot 54b, s. v. כך; Bekhorot 59b, s. v. אף).. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself⁶“From itself” is repeated in Num. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure.”.

HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits⁷In the Babli (Šabbat25a, 26a; Yebamot 74a; and in slightly different form Bekhorot 34a), the two heaves are pure and impure (or pure and questionable), respectively. That tradition is in the name of the Davidic Rabba bar Abuha and may represent the autochthonous Babylonian tradition. In the Yerushalmi tradition, the verse determines the rules of First Fruits as those of heave.. About heave it is written⁸The paragraph deals with the prohibition of impure hallowed food. (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.⁹This statement is fragmentary and unintelligible in the form presented. The full text is in Sifry Deut.63: There you shall bring your elevation offerings, private and public, your well-being offerings, private and public, your tithes; R. Aqiba said, the verse deals with two different tithes, grain tithes and animal tithes, and your hand’s heaves, these are First Fruits, as it is written: The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand. Other heaves do not have to be brought to the Temple.” Maybe we should say that the verse¹⁰Lev. 22:9 which imposes death by the hand of Heaven for desecrators. refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices¹¹Lev. 22:3 imposes the penalty of extirpation on any Cohen coming close to sacrifices while impure. Traditionally, extirpation is considered more of a punishment than death by the hand of Heaven..

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

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

Everything teaches for itself and for others⁷Every verse of the Torah first is needed for its subject but then can be used to deduce rules for other cases by the standard rules of inference, either following R. Ismael or R. Aqiba., the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself⁸While very few verses speak about the obligation of the Great Heave and no details are given, the verses dealing with the heave of the tithe are many and partially contradictory. As explained in the paragraph, the general expressions are taken to refer to the Great Heave and the detailed instructions for the heave of the tithe.. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest⁹Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity.. Cahana said (Num. 18:29): “From its best, the sanctified part from it;” take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce⁶“From itself” is repeated in Num. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure. but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? (Num. 18:28) “From all of your tithes,” one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce¹⁰Chapter 1, Note 206..

Everything teaches for itself and for others⁷Every verse of the Torah first is needed for its subject but then can be used to deduce rules for other cases by the standard rules of inference, either following R. Ismael or R. Aqiba., the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself⁸While very few verses speak about the obligation of the Great Heave and no details are given, the verses dealing with the heave of the tithe are many and partially contradictory. As explained in the paragraph, the general expressions are taken to refer to the Great Heave and the detailed instructions for the heave of the tithe.. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest⁹Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity.. Cahana said (Num. 18:29): “From its best, the sanctified part from it;” take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce⁶“From itself” is repeated in Num. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure. but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? (Num. 18:28) “From all of your tithes,” one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce¹⁰Chapter 1, Note 206..

A non-Cohen who removed¹¹The formal removal of ashes from the altar.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing¹²Num. 18:7.. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar¹²Num. 18:7.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside¹³Outside a divinely approved place of worship; after the building of the Temple, outside of the Temple district. Worship outside the Temple is sinful only if it imitates Temple ceremonies. Babli 24a., the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes;¹⁴Babli 24a. this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he¹⁵The non-Cohen. stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he¹⁵The non-Cohen. removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others¹⁶Lev. 6:4. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(6)., of lesser value than these. But for him¹⁷According to Sifra, R. Eleazar (the Tanna.) who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods¹⁸The logs of firewood on the altar. is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods¹⁹Lev. 1:7. Since a simple plural always means 2 (Note 138); this establishes a formal requirement that two new logs be brought to the altar at the start of the morning service; Lev. 6:5. Babli 24b..

There⁸This baraita is not found in any collection but it is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 33b, together with the opinions of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan. The heave in this paragraph is impure heave which is forbidden as food., we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil⁹In the Babli, R. Joḥanan explicitly adds wheat grains to bread.? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰The name tradition here is impossible, even though it is supported by both mss. In the next sentence, the same R. Samuel bar Naḥman asks R. Joḥanan whether one may use impure heave for lighting. The statement, as noted by R. S. Cirillo, must be in the name of R. Samuel’s teacher R. Jonathan; a similar position is taken in the Babli by Rav Ḥisda and his student Rava. They are afraid that storing of impure heave as fuel would lead to people accidentally eating from the forbidden food. (In mss. of the Babli, substitutions of “Joḥanan” for “Jonathan” and vice-versa are quite frequent.), may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire¹¹Of impure heave.! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence¹²“To you (Aaron) I gave it for excellence,” referring to all obligatory gifts to the Cohen.”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes¹⁵The Mishnah prescribes taking heave of the tithe and ḥallah together, and only then to give a name to Second Tithe and to redeem it. Both tithes should have been given when the grain was first stored at the farm barn. The obligation of ḥallah comes much later, when grain is first made into flour and then the flour into bread dough.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late¹⁶“From your storage and your dema‘ you should not give too late,” Ex. 22:28. From this one concludes that a person who gave heave of the tithe before the first heave cannot declare that he followed all the rules of tithing. No similar rule seems to exist for ḥallah..” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay¹⁷Since heave and tithes should have been given at the threshing floor, any fixing of demay is in itself in the wrong order.? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce¹⁸This refers to Mishnah 1:4 which states that the order of separation for demay is irrelevant, that one may separate the heave of the tithe (which is part of the First Tithe) after the Second Tithe. R. Joḥanan notes that this is one of the special leniencies for demay.? And here¹⁹In Mishnah 5:1. we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁰Tosephta Demay 5:6: “He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together …” There the order of the declaration is heave, heave of the tithe, ḥallah, Second Tithe. Since the first heave is mentioned, one speaks about produce from which nothing at all was yet taken. Nevertheless, ḥallah appears between First and Second tithes.: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe²¹Since ḥallah has the status of heave, once the obligation has started it should take the place of heave that must be given before any tithe.? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it²²Just as if one would transgress giving First Tithe before the heave, the heave given later must be not only from the remaining produce but also from the tithe, since anything that comes later needs to be put in order by fulfillment of the prior obligation. Then the requirement that ḥallah should be taken from dough made from grain from which heave and tithes were taken would be put on its head.. And we have stated in this respect²³Tosephta Terumot 4:10. It follows that heave and ḥallah are coordinate, not subordinate one to the other. Hence, each of them needs to be put in order with respect to the other. But definitely this should give ḥallah a status prior to tithes.: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe²⁴I. e., the heave of the tithe that must be given from the First Tithe. have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else²⁵Not quite everything else, but everything else which has to be given for demay, i. e., comes after heave.. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning²⁶Num. 18:12. Ḥallah also is called “beginning” (Num. 15:20,21) but its obligation does not start at the threshing floor..” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

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

Since we stated: “If there were two fig-cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain⁴For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared.,” etc.²¹Either this part of the Mishnah or the statement of R. Joḥanan is superfluous.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons²²Cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 38. or squash²³Since these are large individual fruits, the argument of R. Joḥanan is not applicable; neither does R. Joḥanan’s statement follow from the Mishnah..

³²This is in Terumot Chapter 4; Notes 64–66. From where that they may be lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵²In the Babli (Bekhorot 32a) this is quoted in the names of R. Joḥanan and Rav and rejected. For Tannaїtic sources, cf. Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq 13(4), quoted Babli Bekhorot 31b, Temurah 5b, 40a.: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal⁵³Num. 18:17 refers only to unblemished animals. No restrictions are put on blemished firstlings other than that they have to be given to a Cohen.. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

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

“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it⁴⁸In the verse נתתים “I gave them.” as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance⁴⁹The root being משח “to anoint”, as symbol of elevation.. As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel⁵⁰In Aramaic, משח is “oil”.. I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it⁵¹The declaration at the distribution of the tithe of the poor and the consumption of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, including a reference to First Fruits. There is a difference in rules between heave and First Fruits in this respect.
The argument as reported in Babli Yebamot 73b is to take ממנו as partitive: This hallowed food cannot be burned but other (heave) can.,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this⁵²Since Second Tithe may always be redeemed for money, impure Second Tithe is redeemed and becomes totally profane. It may be burned as profane fuel.? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money⁵³In this case, R. Jehudah holds in Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 3:10 that produce bought with tithe money in Jerusalem which became impure cannot be redeemed but must be buried.. Rebbi Jehudah said⁵⁴The statement is an Amoraic interpretation of what R. Jehudah might have said, that Mishnah Bikkurim 1:8 implies that impure First Fruits must be destroyed even for those who permit redemption of fruits bought with tithe money., but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

There were seven patriarchs with whom a divine covenant was made, viz.: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas and David. In connection with Abraham it is written, In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying.³⁵Gen. 15, 18. In connection with Isaac it is written, But My covenant will I establish with Isaac.³⁶ibid. XVII, 21. In connection with Jacob it is written, Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob.³⁷Lev. 26, 42. In connection with Moses it is written, For after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.³⁸Ex. 34, 27. In connection with Aaron it is written, It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord.³⁹Num. 18, 19. In connection with Phinehas it is written, And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.⁴⁰ibid. XXV, 13. In connection with David it is written, I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant.⁴¹Ps. 89, 4. Perhaps this passage is quoted here to teach men to emulate their special characteristics. Abraham stands as the example of hospitality, Isaac of self-sacrifice, Jacob of scholarship (cf. Gen. 25, 27, where according to Rabbinic interpretation tents means schools), Moses of meekness, Aaron of peace-making, Phinehas of zeal on behalf of God, and David of singing His praise.

⁶³This paragraph also is in Qiddušin 2:8 (fol. 62d–63a). Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered⁶⁴The Mishnah, which states that a live firstling may be given as a marriage gift, is interpreted to mean that after slaughter it will be permitted to the bride.. There⁶⁵Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8; also quoted Demay 1:3, Notes 185–187: “If somebody uses his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices as marriage gifts, the marriage is not valid. With Second Tithes, be it intentional or in error, the marriage is not valid, the words of R. Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah said, if in error, the marriage is not valid, if intentional, the marriage is valid.” Rebbi Meїr declares that holiest sacrifices, the Cohen’s share of simple sacrifices, and the Second Tithe are all Heaven’s property offered, as the case may be, to the Cohen, his family, or the layman and his family for consumption in Jerusalem. Hence, for R. Meїr, the basic conditions for a valid marriage are not satisfied.
R. Jehudah agrees that under normal circumstances, Second Tithe in Jerusalem cannot be exchanged. However, since it must be redeemed if it became ritually impure, it can also be exchanged unlawfully. His position is explained in Peah, Chapter 7, Note 135. He also holds that the Cohen’s share of the sacrifices is his personal property. Hence, at least as far as simple sacrifices are concerned, the woman becomes his wife through the marriage and can legally consume the meat given to her. R. Jehudah also asserts that Second Tithe is always the owner’s property, even before exchange. However, it cannot be used as a marriage gift directly since there is a lien on it that it should be used only for consumption, and that lien must first be removed by conscient redemption or exchange.
The Babli (Qiddušin 52b) goes to great lengths to find a case in which a woman might receive a Cohen’s part of the holiest sacrifices which must be eaten by male Cohanim in those parts of the Temple yard into which others may enter only when required by the necessities of sacrificial rites. It also holds (Baba Qama 12b) that the statement about the firstling is valid only in the absence of a Temple; a position difficult to reconcile with the first part of the Mishnah., we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There⁶⁶In Qiddušin 2:8., he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him⁶⁷This is a very hypothetical answer which, as seen in the following text, is immediately discarded. It is possible to marry a woman by a future benefit as, e. g., the offer of future services (Qiddušin 3:6). However, since the Cohen’s part of sacrificial meat is defined only at the moment of distribution, one runs into the problem of retroactivity (Demay 6:10, Note 160).. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving⁶⁸The part of the Cohen from a family sacrifice, to be eaten by the Cohen’s family but not the Cohen’s property. The verse identifies the holiness of the firstling with that of the Cohen’s share in a Temple sacrifice..” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being⁶⁹“Their meat shall be for you; like the breast of weaving and the right thigh it shall be for you.” It is implied that the Cohen has maximal use of the firstling. This is taken to mean that the period after slaughter in which the firstling may be eaten is the maximal period found in the Torah for any sacrifice.
In the Babli, Zebaḥim 57a, the discussion is quoted in the name of Tannaїm of the first and second generations. that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three obvious inferences in the Torah. (Num. 18:12): “All the best of olive oil, all the best of cider and grain⁸⁹This is the description of heave; the description as “best” is the basis of the position of R. Jehudah. In the verse, olive oil is treated separately from cider and grain. Everybody agrees that heave of olive oil must be kept separate from that of cider and grain. The argument, known as בנין אב מכתוב אחד, is that if two different species of trees are treated as distinct then two species belonging to completely different families of plants certainly must be treated as distinct..” Where do we hold? Is it to conclude that one may give heave from cider for grain and from grain for cider? One must object that cider and olive oil come from two different species of tree and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other! This means that cider and olive oil are paradigms for two species of trees, in which case one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other. Then I have to add two species of grain, two kinds of produce of which one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

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

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

If somebody had 100 figs, 50 large ones and 50 small ones. If he takes from the large ones, should he take nine? If he takes from the small ones, should he take eleven? If he takes ten large ones, there might be one profane among them and we would worry lest perhaps he use that one to make it heave of the tithe for another place, but it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe⁴⁷Probably a scribal error; it would be more reasonable to say “not tithe from profane,” since once produce is put in order, nothing of it can ever become heave or tithe again. But there is no manuscript evidence for this and the problem is not taken up in Sifry.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana⁴⁸Galilean Amora of the third generation, a student of R. Joḥanan who lived until the time of R. Mana. said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem und continue until it reaches⁴⁹If the total volume of all figs is V and that of the ten equal selected large figs is ε + V/10, then in each fig there is a volume of ε/10 profane and the rest is tithe. Hence, there is no fig selected that cannot be used for heave of the tithe.; in each of the ten there is heave of the tithe and a tiny bit of profane.

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

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

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

That takes care of large quantities. If there was little, if he had ten figs, five large ones and five small ones? If he takes from the large ones, he has to take one minus⁵⁰Cf. Latin parum, adv., “too little, not enough.” a little. From the little ones, he has to take one plus a little. If he took one of the large ones, it contains a little bit of profane and one has to worry that maybe he turns that profane part into heave of the tithe for another place, and it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem and he marks it and says to the Cohen, as far as where I marked it⁵¹The heave extends only from the stem to the mark on the fig..

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

“They acquire [hallowed status] connected to the ground”, as it is written (Num. 18:13): “The First Fruits of anything on their land.”

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry sin because of it.” Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid¹²²The verse declares irregularities in giving heaves as sinful. If irregularly given heave were invalid, it would not be considered given and its giver could not incur sin. This argument is also accepted in Babli Baba Batra 143b..

“First tithe of which its heave had been taken;” since its heave was taken, is it not like profane? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave¹²³Babli Berakhot47a,Šabbat 127b, Eruvin 31b, Pesaḥim 35b, Beẓah13b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish; Yerushalmi Bikkurim 2:3, 2:4 (fol. 65a).. Rebbi Yose said, it is written¹²⁴The two verses quoted are written about heave of the tithe. The MT of 18:28 reads מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ. (Num. 18:29): “From all its best, the holy part from it;” not its best and the best of another person. Rebbi Yose said, it is written (Num. 18:26): “You shall lift from it the heave of the Eternal, tithe of the tithe,” but not heave and tithe from the tithe. When he¹²⁵The Levite who threshed the ears given to him as tithe. made a heap and then gave its heave of the tithe. But if he gave heave of the tithe and then made a heap¹²⁶This starts the obligation of heave which then must be given. In the Babli, this is an observation ascribed to Abbaye. this does not apply. When he gave from itself for it, but if he gave from another place¹²⁷This is permitted but then it is not “from it”; the verses do not apply. this does not apply.

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

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

“First tithe of which its heave had been taken;” since its heave was taken, is it not like profane? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave¹²³Babli Berakhot47a,Šabbat 127b, Eruvin 31b, Pesaḥim 35b, Beẓah13b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish; Yerushalmi Bikkurim 2:3, 2:4 (fol. 65a).. Rebbi Yose said, it is written¹²⁴The two verses quoted are written about heave of the tithe. The MT of 18:28 reads מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ. (Num. 18:29): “From all its best, the holy part from it;” not its best and the best of another person. Rebbi Yose said, it is written (Num. 18:26): “You shall lift from it the heave of the Eternal, tithe of the tithe,” but not heave and tithe from the tithe. When he¹²⁵The Levite who threshed the ears given to him as tithe. made a heap and then gave its heave of the tithe. But if he gave heave of the tithe and then made a heap¹²⁶This starts the obligation of heave which then must be given. In the Babli, this is an observation ascribed to Abbaye. this does not apply. When he gave from itself for it, but if he gave from another place¹²⁷This is permitted but then it is not “from it”; the verses do not apply. this does not apply.

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

Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of]⁹¹From the masoretic text, missing in the quote, but carrying the essence of the proof. The first argument was that the verse associates Cohanim with Levites in receiving tithe. This was countered by the argument that Cohanim always receive the heave of the tithe and, therefore, are always getting part of the Levite’s tithe. That argument is disproved since the heave of the tithe is explicitly mentioned in the second part of the verse, “the Levites shall bring the tithe of the tithe to the Temple.”
This establishes that the right of Cohanim to take tithe was part of the constitution of Nehemiah. This is the accepted doctrine of the Babli (Yebamot 86b) which only discusses the reason behind the decree but does not deny that the right of Cohanim to tithe is purely rabbinical. The Yerushalmi denies this since it continues to find the pentateuchal basis for the rights of Cohanim. the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (Num. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi⁹²“And to the descendants of Levi I gave all tithes in Israel as inheritance.” The first argument is that the beginning “and” also includes the Cohanim. The second argument notes that the verse declares tithes to follow the laws of inheritance. If somebody in his will gives some special part to a son before the general distribution, that son is not excluded from taking part in the division of the inheritance. Therefore, the fact that the Cohanim got heave and the heave of the tithe does not exclude them from the ranks of “descendants of Levi”. If the verse had been addressed instead to “the Levites”, the Cohanim would have been excluded.”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

Rebbi Yannai ordered his relatives, when you lease⁹⁵The Leyden ms. has חכר “to lease”, the Rome ms. and the Venice print חבר “to connect”. In view of H. L. Fleischer’s discussion (in Levy’s Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 204b) of the original meaning of the Aramaic / Arabic root חכר as “keep tight, hold together, hold back” (in modern Arabic only “to hoard”) there is no difference of meaning involved. a field, lease only from lay people since even if you say one does not give tithes to Cohanim you have to agree that one does not take his own⁹⁶The tithe but not heave, cf. Peah Chapter 1, Note 291. out of his hand. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you take from the Children of Israel the tithe which I gave you from them as your inheritance, you should lift from it the heave of the Eternal, a tithe of the tithe.” From the Children of Israel you take out⁹⁷If needed, by a court order. but not from those contracting with Cohanim or Levites. It parallels what Rebbi Eleazar said, “if you take the tithe from the Children of Israel,” from the Children of Israel you take out but not from the Gentile⁹⁸He holds that the produce of the Gentile farmer in the Land is exempt from heave and tithes. Since this is a matter of dispute between Tannaïm, cf. Peah Chapter 4, Notes 131–134, one might read the statement here to say that tithe voluntarily given by a Gentile cannot be obtained from him by a court order; he may give to you but you cannot take from him..

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah⁹⁹A Levite. In the Babli, Yebamot86a/b, the opponent of R. Eleazar ben Azariah is R. Aqiba at all stages. and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah¹⁰⁰A Cohen, direct descendant of Ezra. disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave¹⁰¹A place forbidden to Cohanim.! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard¹⁰²He must mean the courtyard of the priests since women are invited to enter the women’s courtyard and may enter the men’s courtyard for ceremonies required for sacrifices. of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house¹⁰³The expression “house” often is used to represent someone’s wife.”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity¹⁰⁴A cemetery. and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him¹⁰⁵The owner of the vegetable garden. He persuaded him to leave only the cemetery door open and to lock the other. and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written¹⁰⁶Cf. Demay 6:1, Note 8, that an emphasis on “you” means one personally unless an expression of inclusion is added; Terumot 1:1 Note 76, Babli Qiddušin 41b.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken¹⁰⁷This remark, establishing the practice that tithes are not for Cohanim, is missing in the Babli which holds strongly that tithes should be given to Cohanim in preference to Levites.. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers¹⁰⁸To make a point one has to take strong action immediately; later it is useless. The text is doubtful; the proverb appears three times; for סבא here one reads סמא in Beẓah 2:3 and כסא in Ḥagigah 2:3.; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

BARAITHA. Seven patriarchs were under [divine] covenant and they are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas and David. Of Abraham it declares, In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.¹⁶⁴Gen. 15, 18. Of Isaac it declares, But My covenant will I establish with Isaac.¹⁶⁵ibid. XVII, 21. Of Jacob it declares, Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob.¹⁶⁶Lev. 26, 42. Of Moses it declares, For after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.¹⁶⁷Ex. 34, 27. Of Aaron it declares, It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord unto thee.¹⁶⁸Num. 18, 19. Of Phinehas it declares, And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.¹⁶⁹ibid. XXV, 13. Of David it declares, I have made a covenant with My chosen.¹⁷⁰Ps. 89, 4.
GEMARA. It has been taught: Israel too were under [divine] covenant. Whence is this learnt? As it is stated, For after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.¹⁷¹Ex. 34, 27. Shall we say that this refutes the view of R. ‘Aḳiba who said: The generation of the Wilderness¹⁷²Cf. Num. 14, 26ff. have no share in the World to Come?¹⁷³Cf. Sanh. 108a (Sonc. ed., p. 738). R. ‘Aḳiba could reply: On the contrary, it is a support of my view: here it is written, and with Israel, and it is written, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant.¹⁷⁴Jer. 31, 30f, in A.J. XXXI, 31f. Because the generation of the Wilderness broke the covenant by their murmurings against God they lost their share in the World to Come, and only when God will renew the covenant with Israel and Judah will they again be entitled to a share. What, then, is the force of the repetition [and] with? It is to include the babes and sucklings [who came out of Egypt].¹⁷⁵With this new generation of Israel God will enter into the new covenant.
Come and hear: [It is written,] Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I have made a covenant with your fathers¹⁷⁶Jer. 34, 13.—this is a refutation of R. ‘Aḳiba! He can reply: This is rather a support for me, for it is written, But your fathers hearkened not unto Me.¹⁷⁷ibid. 14. They therefore forfeited their share in the World to Come. Come and hear: [It is written,] Gather My saints together unto Me; those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice!¹⁷⁸Ps. 50, 5. This verse implies that the covenant was binding for all time. This is certainly a refutation [of R. ‘Aḳiba’s statement].

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria⁶¹The parts of David’s kingdom not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua; cf. Peah 7, Note 119. R. Eliezer holds that the laws of the Holy Land extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially outside the Land and only selected laws of the Land are extended to apply there.; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria⁶²As explained in Mishnah 8. Biblical law restricts the duty of ḥallah to the Land (Num. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give ḥallah to a Cohen, it was established that some dough should be given to a Cohen. This dough cannot be sanctified, otherwise it would be forbidden to the recipient. but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah⁶³He denies that Syrian soil is impure.. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases.
Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah⁸⁵In the biblical Land of Israel.. The Land of Israel⁸⁶The actual Land of Israel of the Second Commonwealth; cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3, for the geographic details. up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus⁸⁷One has to add, with Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, “any place held by the immigrants from Egypt,” i. e., the regions North of Akhzib described as tribal territories in the book of Joshua., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure⁸⁸The true ḥallah which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7., the one for the Cohen has no measure⁸⁹A purely symbolic ḥallah to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.. From Euphrates or Amanus inside⁹⁰The rest of Syria, domain of biblical promise; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure⁹¹Both ḥallot are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of ḥallah even during the First Commonwealth., the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it⁹²He is forbidden true ḥallah.. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion⁹³This also shows that the symbolic ḥallah is no true heave, cf. Berakhot 1, Note 3..
But it⁹⁴The purely symbolic ḥallah mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body. is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux⁹⁵Lev. 15:1–15, 25–30., and to women during menstruation⁹⁶Lev. 15:19–24. or after childbirth⁹⁷Lev. 12:1–8.. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen⁹⁸Even a vulgar who cannot be expected to follow all rules of purity..
The following may be given to any Cohen¹²²Irrespective of his level of observance and knowledge of the Law. Some of the prescribed gifts are given to priests serving in the Temple; there, they are under supervision and instruction. The other gifts are purely profane; they cannot be impaired by the impurity of the Cohen.: ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a)., firstlings¹²⁴Ex. 13:1, Num. 18:15., the redemption money for a [firstborn] son¹²⁵Ex. 13:1,13, Num. 3:47, 18:15., the redemption value of a firstling donkey¹²⁶Ex. 13:1,13., foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹²⁸Deut. 18:4., oil to burn¹²⁹Impure heave olive oil., Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits¹³⁰Deut. 26:1–11.. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits¹³¹Since they have to follow rules of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1.. Heave vetch¹³²This is animal fodder except in times of famine. Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria⁶¹The parts of David’s kingdom not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua; cf. Peah 7, Note 119. R. Eliezer holds that the laws of the Holy Land extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially outside the Land and only selected laws of the Land are extended to apply there.; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria⁶²As explained in Mishnah 8. Biblical law restricts the duty of ḥallah to the Land (Num. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give ḥallah to a Cohen, it was established that some dough should be given to a Cohen. This dough cannot be sanctified, otherwise it would be forbidden to the recipient. but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah⁶³He denies that Syrian soil is impure.. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases.
Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah⁸⁵In the biblical Land of Israel.. The Land of Israel⁸⁶The actual Land of Israel of the Second Commonwealth; cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3, for the geographic details. up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus⁸⁷One has to add, with Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, “any place held by the immigrants from Egypt,” i. e., the regions North of Akhzib described as tribal territories in the book of Joshua., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure⁸⁸The true ḥallah which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7., the one for the Cohen has no measure⁸⁹A purely symbolic ḥallah to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.. From Euphrates or Amanus inside⁹⁰The rest of Syria, domain of biblical promise; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure⁹¹Both ḥallot are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of ḥallah even during the First Commonwealth., the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it⁹²He is forbidden true ḥallah.. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion⁹³This also shows that the symbolic ḥallah is no true heave, cf. Berakhot 1, Note 3..
But it⁹⁴The purely symbolic ḥallah mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body. is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux⁹⁵Lev. 15:1–15, 25–30., and to women during menstruation⁹⁶Lev. 15:19–24. or after childbirth⁹⁷Lev. 12:1–8.. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen⁹⁸Even a vulgar who cannot be expected to follow all rules of purity..
The following may be given to any Cohen¹²²Irrespective of his level of observance and knowledge of the Law. Some of the prescribed gifts are given to priests serving in the Temple; there, they are under supervision and instruction. The other gifts are purely profane; they cannot be impaired by the impurity of the Cohen.: ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a)., firstlings¹²⁴Ex. 13:1, Num. 18:15., the redemption money for a [firstborn] son¹²⁵Ex. 13:1,13, Num. 3:47, 18:15., the redemption value of a firstling donkey¹²⁶Ex. 13:1,13., foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹²⁸Deut. 18:4., oil to burn¹²⁹Impure heave olive oil., Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits¹³⁰Deut. 26:1–11.. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits¹³¹Since they have to follow rules of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1.. Heave vetch¹³²This is animal fodder except in times of famine. Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

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

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated⁹¹A similar statement is in Tosephta 5:1, where, however, the intermediate Mishnah is not mentioned. Cf. also Terumot 8:1, Note 9.: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money⁹²Lev. 22:11. The verse ends: “He shall eat [the Cohen’s sacred food]”. A parallel statement in the Babli, 57b.;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl⁹³The slave girl, by becoming the property of a Jew, is presumed to become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. Then she has to follow all Jewish laws valid for women (only that, being unable to marry, she is permitted guiltless unmarried sex with everybody except Jewish men). By manumission she would become a full Jewish woman. While a Gentile cannot become impure by biblical standards, the immersion in the ritual bath makes her subject to all rules of purity. If her owner is a Cohen, she may eat his sacred food if in the appropriate state of ritual purity.
A wife is usually acquired in preliminary marriage, as far as criminal law is concerned, by a gift of money or its equivalent. The argument is shaky since one should mention that if the wife is acquired by a matrimonial contract or by sexual relations without a gift of money (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1), there would be no reason to permit heave to the Israel woman preliminarily married to a Cohen. Nowhere do we find that the way the preliminary marriage is effected makes any difference.? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber⁹⁴Tosephta 5:1. However, the same Tosephta (and the Yerushalmi. Yebamot 4:12, Note 197) mentions that in a famine, R. Tarphon (a Cohen) preliminarily married 300 women to give them access to sanctified food. This means that the “later Mishnah” has to be dated some time after the destruction of the Temple when, probably, the importance of heave for the income of Cohanim was rapidly diminishing.. ⁹⁵Tosephta 5:1.”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra⁹⁶The leader of Babylonian Jewry in the first half of the 2^nd Century C.E. at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations⁹⁷Being Gentile, she could be married to a Gentile by sexual relations. But sexual relations with her are forbidden to a Jew and, therefore, she cannot be acquired by a Jew through sexual relations either as a slave or a wife. to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave⁹⁸If preliminary and definitive marriage are enacted together in the bridal chamber without any gift of money, the woman is a wife and entitled to eat her husband’s food by biblical standards., it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse⁹⁹Num. 18:11. The wife is part of the household only after the definitive marriage. The argument is rejected in Sifry Num. 117, since in. v. 13 a similar restriction is noted, “every pure person in your household shall eat it,” and it is a generally accepted hermeneutical principle that “two consecutive restrictions mean a relaxation”, in this case, that the wife may eat heave from the moment of the preliminary marriage. Therefore, the restriction to definitively married wives is purely rabbinical.: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession¹⁰⁰The word חֲזָקָה “grasping” can have two very different meanings. In legal arguments, it denotes a general assumption which generates prima facie evidence. In the law of real estate and slaves, it denotes the exercise of possession. For example, if an intestate person dies without heirs (e. g., a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family), his property becomes ownerless and is up for grabs. Therefore, if somebody goes to the ownerless real estate and acts as proprietor, fencing in or harvesting a field or painting a house, he has acquired the piece of real estate by his action. Similarly, if somebody takes an ownerless slave from the estate and tells him to work on his orders, the work of the slave makes him the property of the person giving the orders. The work can be quite symbolical, such as carrying a stone for a short stretch, to qualify as חֲזָקָה and if the acquirer is a Cohen, the slave is qualified to eat heave. Therefore, the means of acquisition of slave girls and wives are only partially comparable; the ways of acquisition of a slave are not subordinated to those for a wife. to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

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

Some of them¹³⁴The items listed in the Mishnah. are given to the people of the watch¹³⁵The families of certified Cohanim, admitted to service in the Temple, were divided into 24 sections, each of which was the watch serving in the Temple for one week. Except for the High Priest, no Cohen had the right to officiate in the Temple except during holidays and the week assigned to his watch.; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings¹³⁶Unblemished firstlings which are a sacrifice of which the owners receive no part. Blemished firstlings, unfit for sacrifice, may be given to any Cohen locally. and First Fruits¹³⁷Have to be delivered to the Cohen in the Temple. to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a). are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen¹³⁸Since the chapter deals with transactions by the Temple treasurer, it follows that a specially dedicated field has to be given by the treasurer to the Cohen officiating in the Temple, i. e., to the watch of the week. The same argument in Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin 28a..” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?)¹³⁹A dittography in both mss.; it must be an old error. But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch¹⁴⁰If “Cohen” in the first verse means “Cohen of the current watch” then in the second verse it should have the same meaning. But since Deut. 18:3 clearly speaks about profane slaughter, away from the Temple, the meaning of the word must include any Cohen.
The Babli (Arakhin 28b) disagrees and compares “Cohen” in this verse, about which it is written (v. 16) “If … a man declares holy for the Eternal” to the Cohen mentioned in the law about the repentant offender in case the person he injured or defrauded has died heirless, where it is written: (Num.5:6) “The money must be returned to the Eternal for the Cohen”. The latter money is distributed among the people of the current watch.? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch¹⁴¹All most holy sacrifices are either totally burned or eaten by Cohanim only., so ḥērem- dedications are for the people of the watch!

HALAKHAH: “An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,⁵⁶Num. 18:11, speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3.” but she is not in his house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house⁵⁷This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “And also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel,” “a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man⁵⁸Lev. 22:12: “she may not eat from the holy heaves.”.” One⁵⁹Speaking of the parallel cases not mentioned in the Mishnah of a Cohen’s daughter betrothed to, pregnant from, or waiting for a levir of, an Israel. pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house⁶⁰Lev. 22:12: “she may eat from her father’s food.” The same argument in the Babli, 87a. A longer discussion in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1),” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth⁵⁹Speaking of the parallel cases not mentioned in the Mishnah of a Cohen’s daughter betrothed to, pregnant from, or waiting for a levir of, an Israel.,” that excludes the pregnant one.

“An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite,” “you and your house⁶¹Num. 18:31.” but she is not in his house. “Pregnant from a Levite,” “born in the house,” this one is not born in his house⁵⁷This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. Rebbi Yose said, is not “born in the house” written only for a Cohen? As you say there, whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat; here also whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat⁶²All rules for the Levites are (rabbinically) derived from those of the Cohen; they are not biblical.. “Waiting for her Levite levir,” “you and your house,” but he is not in her house. “And also a Levite woman”: “And a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man⁵⁸Lev. 22:12: “she may not eat from the holy heaves.”.” Is there not written “daughter of a Cohen”? Rebbi Yose said “daughter”, whether she is a Cohen’s or a Levi’s⁶³This argument is a little less cryptic in the Babli, 68b, in the name of R. Abba: Since it is written “and a daughter” and not simply “a daughter”, following R. Aqiba one has to add another category of daughters who do not eat their part of agricultural produce.. The daughter of a Cohen who was married to an Israel may return and eat, the daughter of an Israel who was married to a Cohen may return and not eat. One⁶⁴Again the case of the Levite is assimilated into that of the Cohen. pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house,” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.

“A Levitic woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,⁵⁶Num. 18:11, speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3.” but he is not in her house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house⁵⁷This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. ⁶⁵This text is copied from Ma‘aser Sheni 5:9, Notes 176–177.“Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [betrothed] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim⁶⁶This last sentence is inappropriate here; it refers to the position of R. Joḥanan that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to a Levite may eat tithe. The discussion in the Babli, 86a/b, remains inconclusive..

¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats¹¹⁵Num. 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says¹¹⁶Lev. 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned¹¹⁷Since Num. 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated¹¹⁸Mishnah Menaḥot3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael¹¹⁹The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood¹²⁰For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood¹²¹If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable¹²²Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..

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

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

HALAKHAH: One verse says²⁰²Num. 18:17., but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says²⁰³Deut. 12:27., and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition²⁰⁴2 Chr. 35:11. that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be²⁰⁵Num. 19:20, about sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow. Cf. Zevaḥim 36b/37a., etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

HALAKHAH: From where that they are not lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it⁶⁴This argument proves only that heave creates dema‘, not that dema‘ containing a minute amount of heave may be repaired. The same argument is in Sifry Num. 121.. How much is this? One in one hundred⁶⁵In Tosephta 5:8, the argument is made that the smallest amount called heave is heave of the tithe which is 10% of 10% or 1%, and that nothing less is called heave. The argument is rejected. Therefore, the determination of these limits is purely rabbinical.. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred, one sixth of what makes dema‘; practice follows him⁶⁶Nevertheless, Maimonides (Terumot 13:1) decides according to R. Eliezer, probably because Mishnaiot Ḥallah 1:9, Orlah 2:1 are anonymous and follow R. Eliezer; in addition the Tosephta (5:8) quotes the ruling of R. Eliezer in the name of R. Yose, the most important teacher of the fourth generation, whose word is almost always to be followed..

¹⁸¹From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Ma‘aser Šeni 1:2, Notes 63–69 (מ). The only major addition is a quote of the Mishnah here. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Meïr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he becomes betrothed while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”¹⁸²The text is misquoted here, correct in Ma‘aser Šeni., even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”¹⁸²The text is misquoted here, correct in Ma‘aser Šeni.? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? It says here, dying he shall be put to death⁷⁷E. g. Lev. 20:10. An unspecified death penalty is by strangling;, and it says there, anybody acceding to the Eternal’s abode will die, etc.⁷⁸Num. 17:28. While the verse speaks of the access of non-priests to the Sanctuary, it supports only the rabbis’ argument since it clearly refers to Heaven’s actions. The parallel in the Babli 84a (Sifry Deut. 116, end) makes more sense. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, dying he shall be put to death, but it says there, any outsider coming close shall be put to death⁷⁹Num. 18:7. This verse supports R. Aqiba.. It is better to compare shall be put to death with shall be put to death and not shall be put to death with shall die⁸⁰To transfer the interpretation of one word to another verse, the word has to be in the same grammatical form. It is clear that the positions of יומת and ימות have to be switched..

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who buys loose produce from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe¹¹¹See Chapter 3, Notes 131–132. Since heave is taken as a matter of common practice, heave and heave of the tithe remain the property of the owner (Babli Bekhorot 11b). Since heave and heave of the tithe may be eaten only by Cohanim, presumably they will make a very low offer for the food, but they must pay.. But he who buys produce still in the ground from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and does not take money from the tribe¹¹²Since the obligation of heave and tithes comes only when the harvest is stored, the obligation devolves on the Jew and the tithes are the immediate property of the Cohanim; the owner only has the choice of whom to give.. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you remove the tithe from the Children of Israel.” From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites¹¹³This refers to the second case, when the owner can decide to whom to give. However, it is possible that the sentence should read (Sifry Zuṭa Qoraḥ#26): “From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from Cohanim or Levites.” In that case, the quote has no direct connection with the discussion here.. From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the hand of a Gentile¹¹⁴This refers to the first case, when the harvest was the Gentile’s and no Biblical obligation of heave and tithes was incurred. The Babli (Bekhorot 11b) reports in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi that only heave, not heave of the tithe, must be given as a matter of practice. This is a serious disagreement between the two Talmudim..

‘The priesthood [in the form of] twenty-four distinctions’:¹⁷⁹These were the perquisites of the priests. Cf. B.Ḳ. 110b (Sonc. ed., p. 646). viz. ten in [the precincts of] the Temple, ten in the provincial towns and four in Jerusalem. Ten in [the precincts of] the Temple, viz. the sin-offering [of an animal], trespass-offering [for a known sin], peace-offerings of the congregation, sin-offering of a bird, trespass-offering for a doubtful sin, the log of oil in the case of a leper, the two loaves, the shewbread, remnant of the ‘Omer and remnants of the meal-offerings. Ten in the provincial towns, viz. terumah, the terumah of the tithe, ḥallah, the first of the fleece, the shoulder, cheeks and maw, the redemption of the first-born son, the redemption of the firstling of an ass, [payment of a fine for] robbery committed against a proselyte,¹⁸⁰Cf. Ḥul. 133b (Sonc. ed., p. 758, n. 16). devoted [articles],¹⁸¹Num. 18, 14. B.Ḳ. reads ‘a field devoted’. and a field of possession.¹⁸²Lev. 27, 16-21. And four in Jerusalem, viz. the firstlings, the first fruits, the portion separated of the thanks-offering, and of the ram of the Nazirite. What are these [portions]? The breast and the thigh. It has been taught:¹⁸³B.Ḳ. 110b (Sonc. ed., p. 645, n. 9). All these [perquisites] were granted to Aaron by ḳal waḥomer, gezerah shawah, binyan ’ab and kelal uferaṭ.¹⁸⁴These are the first four of the thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is interpreted and enumerated by R. Ishmael. Cf. the text in P.B., p. 13.

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