משנה: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁתְּרָמָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹסֵר מִלּוֹכַל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין חוּץ מִכַּלְכָּלַת הַתְּאֵינִים. כַּלְכָּלַת תְּאֵינִים שֶׁתְּרָמָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֵילָךְ אִיסָּר זֶה וְתֵן לִי בוֹ חָמֵשׁ תְּאֵינִים לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אוֹכֵל אַחַת אַחַת וּפָטוּר וְאִם צֵירַף חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגִינַּת װְרָדִים שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּירוּשָׁלַםִ וְהָיוּ תְאֵינֶיהָ נִמְכָּרוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וּמֵאַרְבַּע בְּאִיסָּר וְלֹא הִפְרִישׁוּ מִמֶּנָּה תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר מֵעוֹלָם. MISHNAH: Fruits from which he gave heave before they were completely processed72As explained in Chapter 1, Mishnaiot 2 ff., Rebbi Eliezer prohibits to eat snacks from them73He holds that once heave was given, tithes also must be given even though the obligation of heave and tithes never starts before the end of processing. but the Sages permit it except for harvesting-baskets of figs74Most figs are harvested for processing into fig cakes and dried figs. But, as the preceding two Mishnaiot show, some figs are used or sold directly from the basket used when harvesting the figs.. Rebbi Simeon permits from a harvesting-basket of figs from which heave was taken but the Sages forbid. If somebody says to another person, here take this as95A Roman coin, one twenty-fourth of a denar. and give me five figs for it, he should not eat before he tithed, the words of Rebbi Meir96Since a sale induces ṭevel; cf. Note 5.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he eats them singly he is free, if he takes them together97If he holds at least two figs simultaneously; cf. Note 21. he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah said, there is a story that a rose garden was in Jerusalem whose figs were sold three or four for an as and nobody ever gave heave and tithes for them98They were only used as single snacks..
הלכה: מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם בְּכַלְכָּלָה שֶׁל תְּאֵינִים דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אִם בְּזֵיתִים עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן וַעֲנָבִים עַל הַיַּיִן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּתְמָרִים וְהוּא עָתִיד לְדוֹרְסָן. בִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת וְהוּא עָתִיד לְדוּשָׁן. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין אֵין תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ מְלַאכְתָּן. HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If about a harvesting-basket of figs, everybody agrees that it is forbidden75In the discussion between the Sages and R. Eliezer, disregarding the opinion of R. Simeon.. If about oil olives and wine grapes, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing76Into date cakes., dried figs intended for pressing77Into fig cakes. Tosephta 2:2 explicitly states that the disagreement between R. Eliezer and the Sages refers to these cases only. That Tosephta cannot have been the basis of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Eliezer says, heave creates ṭevel78Since heave was already given, this ṭevel refers only to tithes and the heave of the tithe contained in the First Tithe. of fruits not completely processed but the Sages say, heave does not create ṭevel of fruits not completely processed.
רִאשׁוֹן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל. מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם בִּכְרִי שֶׁנִּתְמָרֵחַ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אִם בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶּׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בַּשִּׁבֳּלִין דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּתְמָרִים וְהוּא עָתִיד לְדוֹרְסָן. בִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת וְהוּא עָתִיד לְדוּשָׁן. וְהִפְרִישׁ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה וְנִמְלַךְ לַהֲנִיחָן כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן. וְעָבַר וְהִפְרִישׁ מֵהֶן רִאשׁוֹן. אִין תֵּימַר לְמַפְרֵיעַ נִטְבְּלוּ תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא טוֹבֶלֶת. אִין תֵּימַר מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא רִאשׁוֹן הוּא שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵל. Can First Tithe induce ṭevel79For Second Tithe or the tithe of the poor, depending on the year in the Sabbatical cycle.? Where do we hold? If about a grain heap that was smoothed, everybody holds that it is forbidden. If First Tithe was given from ears, everybody agrees80Tosephta 2:2: “R. Eliezer concedes to the Sages that if somebody gave heave from ears but intends to thresh the grain, from grapes but intends to make wine, from olives but intends to make oil, he can eat snacks from them.” The reason is that heave and tithes of grain are always referred to as “from the threshing floor” (Num. 15:20; 18:27,30) or “from flour” (Deut. 12:17, 14:23, 18:4). By biblical decree, nothing preceding the threshing may induce ṭevel. Similarly, the obligations on the grape and olive harvests are referred to as heave of “cider and oil” (Deut. 12:17, 14:23, 18:4). that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing76Into date cakes., large figs intended for pounding77Into fig cakes. Tosephta 2:2 explicitly states that the disagreement between R. Eliezer and the Sages refers to these cases only. That Tosephta cannot have been the basis of the Yerushalmi., of which he gave the Great Heave and then changed his mind to store them as they were. Then he transgressed81Since he gave heave when it was not due, he should first give heave when it is due before giving First Tithe. and gave First Tithe. If you say that ṭevel was created retroactively, the heave induces ṭevel. If you say that ṭevel is created from there onwards, the First Tithe induces ṭevel.
הַלּוֹקֵחַ תְּמָרִים וְהוּא עָתִיד לְדוֹרְסָן גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְהוּא עָתִיד לְדוּשָׁן אָסוּר לוֹכַל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי. מְתַקְּנָן דְּמַאי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי וּמְתַקְּנָן וַודַּאי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם חִילְפַיי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אַשְׁכְּחוֹן כְּתַב בְּפִּינַקְסֵיהּ דְּחִילְפַיי אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי וּמְתַקְּנָן וַודַּאי. וְקַשְׁיָא אִם אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי מְתַקְּנָן וַדַּאי. אִם מְתַקְּנָן דְּמַאי יְהֵא אָסוּר לוֹכַל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. וּמְתַקְּנָן וַודַּאי מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבֵּיתוֹ טוֹבֵל אַף הוּא מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. “82Tosephta 2:3., reading of the Erfurt ms. If somebody buys dates to press them, dried figs to pound them, he may not eat a snack from them and must tithe as demay, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, he may eat a snack from them and must give tithes as certain, the words of Rebbi Yose83The last clause is missing in the Tosephta. The text here seems to be the conflation of a Tosephta in the name of the Sages and a baraita in the name of R. Yose. Since R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) determines practice, there is no difference in fact between Tosephta and baraita..” Rebbi Hilai, Rebbi Lazar in the name of Hilfai; Rebbi Jonah said, it was found on the writing tablet of Hilfai84Two different opinions on the chain of transmission, whether oral or written.: He may eat a snack from them and gives tithes as certain85This is the reading in both mss. and the editio princeps. However, the text requires that one read “tithes as demay”.. This is difficult! If he may eat a snack from them86This implies that the fruits are not yet processed; the obligation of tithes has not yet started and, therefore, the seller could not have given heave and tithes., he should give certain tithes. If he tithes as demay87The seller certainly gave heave; the buyer may not eat from the produce before separating the heave of the tithe., he should be forbidden to eat them as a snack! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: He may eat them as snack because their processing is not finished88The obligation of heave did not start yet.; he gives certain tithes85This is the reading in both mss. and the editio princeps. However, the text requires that one read “tithes as demay”. since he [the seller]89The vulgar seller knows that the house induces ṭevel because this is a biblical commandment. He does not know the requirement that the processing has to be finished since that is only a rabbinic interpretation of the verse. knows that his house induces ṭevel, he will separate heave from the start.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּכַלְכָּלָה שֶׁלְּכָל־דָּבָר הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמַה אִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ זִיקַת שְׁלֹשָׁה מַעְשְׂרוֹת אַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא זִיקַת שְׁנֵי מַעְשְׂרוֹת לֹא כָּל־שֶּׁכֵן. רִאשׁוֹן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל לַשֵּׁינִי. מַה אִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו זִיקַת שְׁנֵי מַעְשְׂרוֹת אַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא זִיקַת מַעֲשֵׂר אֶחָד לֹא כָּל־שֶּׁכֵן. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah90The statement of R. Simeon in the last sentence of the Mishnah. deals with any harvesting-basket91Not only of figs.. 92Tosephta 2:2; instead of the Yerushalmi stereotype לא כל שכן the Tosephta has the Babylonian .דין הוא“Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes93Great Heave, First and Second Tithes., so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.94For him, heave does not create ṭevel for any produce whose processing was completed outside the farmhouse as long as the farmer intends to bring the produce to the house for storage.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מַה פְלִיגִין בְּלוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵט לֶאֱכוֹל כָּל־עַמָּה מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל אַחַת אַחַת וּפָטוּר. וְאִם צֵירַף חַייָב. Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They disagree if he gathers and delivers99R. Meїr holds that a sale creates ṭevel if the gatherer collected to sell without knowing what the buyer would do. But if the figs are picked by the person who eats them, even R. Meїr will agree that the sale does not induce ṭevel.. But if he gathers for [his own] food, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and is free, but if he takes them together he is obligated.
רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן חֲלוּקִין כָּאן כָּךְ חֲלוּקִין בַּחֲצַר בֵּית שְׁמִירָה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִקַּח בְּחָצֵר בְּשַׁבָּת אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הַמְחוּוָר מִכּוּלָּן זוֹ חֲצַר בֵּית שְׁמִירָה. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as they differ here they differ about a secure courtyard100In Mishnah 3:5, R. Ismael declares that a Tyrian courtyard, defined as one where vessels are safe from being stolen, acts like a house for ṭevel. since Rebbi Joḥanan said that [the rules of] buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical101Since they induce ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, R. Jehudah insists that leniencies are possible which would be impossible for biblical obligations. The problem here is that all tithes except those of grain, wine, and oil are rabbinical. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that the basic hypothesis in all tractates of Zeraїm is that the covenant of Neḥemiah stipulates that all obligations on the Land be kept as if they were biblical.
For מִקַּח בְּחָצֵר בְּשַׁבָּת one should read מִקַּח וְחָצֵר וְשַׁבָּת. The mss. presuppose that both β and ו were pronounced /ν/; cf. S. Baer, סידור עבודת ישׂראל p. 565.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard102In the Babli, Baba Meẓiʻa 88a, R. Joḥanan proves from Deut. 26:12: “they shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” that any place inside the city gates, including courtyards, are places where food can be eaten which by necessity must be tithed. While this is incompatible with the position of R. Joḥanan here in the Yerushalmi, it may underlie the position of R. Simeon ben Laqish..
חֲבֵרַייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי יוּדָה אֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֵין אַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי בְּנוֹתֵֵן לִבְנוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. מַה לִי הַלּוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לִבְנוֹ מַה לִי הַלּוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לְאַחֵר. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר בְּלוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אוֹ נֵימַר בְּלוֹקֵט וְאוֹכֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא לֵית כָּאן בְּלוֹקֵט וְאוֹכֵל אֶלָּא בְּלוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. מִן הָדָא גִּינַּת װְרָדִין. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר גִּינַּת װְרָדִין בְּלוֹקֵט וְאוֹכֵל לֹא בְּלוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אוֹף הָכָא בְּלוֹקֵט וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ דוּ אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין אַתְּ עֲלִיל אַתְּ מְקַלְקֵּל װְרָדֶיהָ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל הֲװָיָה דְּרִבִּי מָנָא כַּרְמָא אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ גְפָנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מָכוּר שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹ. פַּרְדֵיסָא אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אִילָנוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה מָכוּר שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹ. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So did Rebbi Jehudah disprove Rebbi Meїr[’s argument]: Do you not concede to me that one who gives to his son is free? What is the difference between gathering and giving to his son or gathering and giving to another person103Since it was agreed in the first paragraph of this Halakhah that R. Meїr frees from tithes if not the fruits themselves but the right to gather them was bought, the fact that money changes hands between the farmer and a stranger but not between himself and his son becomes irrelevant.? Rebbi Yudan asked: What did you see to say ‘if he gathers and delivers,’ can we not say ‘if he gathers and eats’104In this case, R. Jehudah’s reputed argument becomes irrelevant.? Rebbi Mana said, there cannot be “if he gathers and eats”, only “if he gathers and delivers,” because of that rose garden105According to R. Mana, Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar cannot be correct.. Can you say the rose garden [is a case of] gathering and eating? No, gathering and delivering! There also, he gathers and delivers because he106The owner of the rose garden to the buyer of figs. would say to him, if you enter you will damage its roses! A baraita107Tosephta Baba Batra 6:18 (in different order), Yerushalmi Ketubot8:7 (fol. 32b), Babli Baba Batra 7a, Baba Meẓi‘a 104a (both parallel the Tosephta). disagrees with Rebbi Mana’s argument: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the orchard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description108The Babli adds a clarification: Only if the properties were known as “orchard” or “vineyard”. In any case, it is shown that the “rose garden” need not contain any roses; R. Mana’s argument is invalid and the statement of Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar stands..’ ”