משנה: תְּאֵינָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר אוֹכֵל אַחַת אַחַת וְאִם צֵירַף חַייָב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַחַת בִּימִינוֹ וְאַחַת בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ וְאַחַת בְּפִיו. עָלָה לְרֹאשָׁהּ מְמַלֵּא חֵיקוֹ וְאוֹכֵל. גֶּפֶן שֶׁהִיא נְטוּעָה בֶּחָצֵר נוֹטֵל אֶת כָּל־הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכֵן בָּרִמּוֹן וְכֵן בָּאֲבַטִּיחַ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מְגַרְגֵּר בָּאֶשְׁכּוֹל וּפוֹרֵט בָּרִמּוֹן וְסוֹפֵת בָּאֲבַטִּיחַ. כּוּסְבָּר שֶׁהִיא זְרוּעָה בֶּחָצֵר מְקַרְטֵם עָלֶה עָלֶה וְאוֹכֵל וְאִם צֵירַף חַייָב. סִיאָה וְהָאֵזוֹב וְהַקּוּרְנִית שֶׁבְּחָצֵר אִם הָיוּ נִשְׁמָרִין חַייָבִין. תְּאֵינָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר וְנוֹטָה לַגִּינָּה אוֹכֵל כְּדַרְכּוֹ וּפָטוּר. עוֹמֵד בַּגִּינָּה וְנוֹטָה לֶחָצֵר אוֹכֵל אַחַת אַחַת וְאִם צֵירַף חַייָב. עוֹמֶדֶת בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹטָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְנוֹטָה לָאָרֶץ הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הָעִיקָּר. וּבְבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הָעִיקָּר. בְּעָרֵי מִקְלָט הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. וּבִירוּשָׁלֵם הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. MISHNAH: From a fig tree standing in a courtyard130If the figs are collected for eating raw, their processing is completed with picking and the courtyard obligates for heave and tithes., one may eat one by one and if he took them together he is obligated. Rebbi Simeon says, one in his right hand, one in his left hand, and one in his mouth131If no two figs are simultaneously in a hand or in a vessel, they are not “taken together.”. If he climbed to the top of the tree132Then he is no longer in the courtyard. The top of the tree is supposed to be more than 10 handbreadths above the ground; cf. Kilayim 6:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.6.2.4">Kilaim 6, Note 31. he may fill the fold of his toga133Hebrew חיק “bosom” is used as an equivalent of Latin sinus, ūs, m., which in addition to “bosom” also means “fold, pocket, purse” (E. G.). and eat.
From a vine planted in a courtyard one may take an entire bunch; the same holds for a pomegranate and a watermelon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, he takes single grape berries, single seeds of a pomegranate, and picks145Enough for one bite; cf. Mishnah 2:6, Note 109. from the watermelon. Of coriander sown in the courtyard146The restriction does not apply to coriander growing as a weed. For the other three spice plants mentioned, it is enough that they be guarded as valuable plants even if they started as weeds and were not sown by the owners of the courtyard; cf. Ševiїt 7:7, Note 51; 8 Mishnah 1. he snips off leaf by leaf and eats; when he takes them together they are obligated. Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are guarded.
If a fig tree was standing in a courtyard but its crown was hanging over a vegetable garden, one eats148Standing in the unwalled garden and picking the fruit there, as explained in the Mishnah. as usual and is free. If it was standing in a vegetable garden but its crown was hanging over a courtyard, one eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. If it was standing in the Land and hanging over outside the Land or standing outside the Land and hanging over the Land, everything is determined by the stem. For houses of walled cities149Which can be bought back by the seller only during the first year of the sale, Leviticus.25.29-30">Lev. 25:29–30. The rule given there for houses is extended to trees growing in the city., everything is determined by the stem. For cities of refuge150Numbers.35">Num. 35. If the homicide reaches the crown of a tree whose stem is inside 2000 cubits from the wall of a city of refuge, he is safe., all goes by the crown, for Jerusalem151Second tithe can be redeemed outside Jerusalem; in Jerusalem it must be consumed in purity. Once it is brought under the crown of a tree of Jerusalem, it cannot any longer be redeemed. The Makkot.12a">Babli (Makkot 12a) notes that the two last statements are parallel but the reasons are different. all goes by the crown.
הלכה: תַּנֵּי נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׁהוּת לְפַצֵּעַ בָּהּ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנִייָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא שֶׁאִם לִיקֵּט אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי שָׁהוּת רִאשׁוֹנָה נִטְבְּלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן. HALAKHAH: It was stated: One gives him time to hit it a first, second, and third time. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeїra: If he collected the second one during the time allotted for the first, both became ṭevel135The meaning of this paragraph is unclear; the subject is not mentioned in Maimonides’s Code.
According to R. Eliahu Fulda, one speaks of unripe figs which need to be softened to become edible. The new information would be that in order to eat a fruit as a snack, it is not necessary to swallow it as soon as it is taken but one may take all the time necessary to make it edible. However, if the second is picked while the first one is still there, both become ṭevel.
According to R. Moses Margalit, there is a standard time allotted for the eating of each fig (irrespective of its ripeness). According to him, if the second fig is picked while the first still exists, both become ṭevel. Then one wonders what the statement of R. Zeїra means.
According to R. Eliahu Kramer of Wilna, if the second fig is picked during the time allotted to the first, if the first still exists, both become ṭevel. But if he second fig is picked after the time allotted to the first, even if the first still exists, only the second one becomes ṭevel; the first remains permitted.
According to Sefer Nir, the first sentence refers to Tosephta 2:22: “A fig tree standing in a garden which extends a branch into a window, he (mss: eats) (editio princeps: picks) it normally and is free. If he picked and put it on a table, even a single one is obligated.” The first sentence of the paragraph states that even if he did not put it on a table but waited after softening the fig three times, he is obligated. This interpretation is the only one giving the Mishnaic expression “one gives him time” the usual restrictive meaning of “so much but not more.” The second sentence is then taken to mean that if the second fig is picked after the time allotted for the first, if the first is not yet completely eaten the existing remainder becomes obligated but the second remains free unless held together with the first..
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי זָרַק אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְמַעֲלָה מֵאֲוֵיר עֲשָׂרָה לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לֵירֵד לְמַטָּה מֵאֲוֵיר עֲשָׂרָה עַד שֶׁלִּיקֵּט אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה נִטְבְּלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw the first higher in the air than 10 [hand-breadths132Then he is no longer in the courtyard. The top of the tree is supposed to be more than 10 handbreadths above the ground; cf. Kilayim 6:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.6.2.4">Kilaim 6, Note 31.] and it did not descend below 10 [hand-breadths] when he collected the second one, did both of them become ṭevel136This is one of R. Jeremiah's famous hair-splitting questions which deserves no answer. If the first fig comes to rest on a ledge, it becomes obligated by the Tosephta quoted in the preceding Note. If it descends, the second fig was collected within the time allotted to the first and both become ṭevel. The statement can be taken as supporting the interpretation of the preceding paragraph given by Sefer Nir.?
רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ בִּימִינוֹ וְשָׁלֹשׁ בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ וְשָׁלֹשׁ בְּפִיו. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל יְדֵי דַהֲוָה אָכְלָן הֲוָה מְשָׁעֵר גַּרְמֵיהּ כֵּן. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר לַקּוֹנִיָּא חָמוֹי הֲוָה מְזַג לֵיהּ וְהוּא שָׁתֵי. מְזַג לֵיהּ וְהוּא שָׁתֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא שְׁמָעַת מִן אָבוּךְ כַּמָּה אָדָם צָרִיךְ לְגַמּוֹת בַּכּוֹס. אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא אַחַת. בְּצוֹנִין שְׁתַּיִם. בְּחַמִּין שָׁלֹשׁ וְלֹא שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים לֹא בְּיֵינָךְ שֶׁהוּא נָאֶה וְלֹא בְּכּוֹסָךְ שֶׁהוּא קָטָן וְלֹא בִּכְרֵיסִי שֶׁהִיא רְחָבָה. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, three in his right hand, three in his left hand, and three in his mouth137He extends his father’s rule from one to three figs each, in contradiction to our general rule that even two at the same place become obligated.. Since Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon was a glutton, he estimated so for himself. 138A slightly extended version of this story is in Pesiqta deRav Kahana, p. 91a/b. The Pesachim.86b">Babli (Pesaḥim 86b) has a similar story attributed to R. Ismael ben R. Yose, who had a reputation of being as obese as R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon went to his father-in-law Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia who repeatedly mixed wine for him which he gulped down. He said to him, did you not hear from your father how one swallows from a cup? He said to him, one gulp if it is unmixed, two gulps [if mixed] with cold water, three with hot water. But the Sages did not estimate this with your wine which is good, or with your cup which is small, or with my belly which is large.
וַהֲוָה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה צְװַח לֵיהּ חַלָּא בַּר חַמְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה אַתְּ צְװַח לִי כֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ עַד דַּעֲרַקְתְּ וַאֲזַלְתְּ לָךְ לְלַדוֹקֵיָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא קוֹצִין כְּסִיחִין כִּסַּחְתִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא הֲוָה לֵילֵךְ לָךְ לְסוֹף הָעוֹלָם לְהַנִּיחַ בַּעַל הַּגִּינָּה שֶׁיִּקּוֹץ אֶת קוֹצִין. 139The first part from the story in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 83b is missing: R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon, known for his psychological profiling of thieves, was forced by the Roman government to act as a detective to discover thieves and robbers. R. Joshua objected: the Roman government executed all robbers and thieves while Jewish law only required double restitution in the case of a thief and simple restitution in the case of a robber. Therefore, collaboration with the Roman Government would be possible murder. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah called him “vinegar son of wine.” He said to him, why do you call me that? He said to him, you should have gone to Laodicea. He said to him: Do I not mow mowable thorns from the garden140The people of Israel. The imagery is from the Song of Songs.? He said to him, you should have gone to the end of the world to let the owner of the garden cut his thorns.
נִתְגַּלְגְּלָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ מַהוּ מַחֲזָּרָתָהּ כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן מַחֲזִירָן לִמְקוֹמָן וְאוֹכֵל. וְאוֹף הָכָא כֵן. תַּמָּן בְּמַחֲזִירָן בְּמָקוֹם פְּטוֹר. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּמַחֲזִירָן לְמָקוֹם חִייוּב. מַה דָמִי לָהּ הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּרֹאשׁ הַתְּאֵינָה מַה אַתְּ עֲבִיד לָהּ כְּעוֹמֵד בָּעִיר כְּעוֹמֵד בַּשָּׂדֶה. יֵיבָא כְהָדָא הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעִיר וְאָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהַפּוֹעֲלִין שׁוֹכְחִין עוֹמֶר שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּשְׁכָחוּהוּ אֵינָהּ שִׁכְחָה. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּשָּׂדֶה וְאָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהַפּוֹעֲלִין שׁוֹכְחִין עוֹמֶר שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּשְׁכָחוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה שִׁכְחָה דִּכְתִיב בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ וְלֹא בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַחְתָּ. If it141A fig from a tree in a walled courtyard which he picked with the intention of eating it right away. Now the fig is lying in the courtyard subject to heave and tithes. rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there142Halakhah 1, about figs from an exempt courtyard which were brought into the house by error; Notes 17–19., may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree143Which is an exempt domain by itself., to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following144Peah 5:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.5.6.3">Peah 5:6, Note 123. No answer is given. It is difficult to understand the quote since the case in Peah is not decided on the basis of logic but of a narrow biblical decree restricted to the case of a forgotten sheaf.: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deuteronomy.24.19">Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הָיָה אוֹכֵל אֶת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל וְנִכְנַס מִן הַגִּינָּה לֶחָצֵר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִגְמוֹר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לֹא יִגְמוֹר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ דְּרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן עֲבַד עוּקְצַת הָאוֹכֶל מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ. רִבִּי אִילָּא רִבִּי אִיסִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן עֲבַד אֲכִילָה שְׁתַּיִם שָׁלֹשׁ אֲכִילוֹת כַּאֲכִילָה אַחַת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִתְחִיל בּוֹ בְהֵיתֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי נָתַן לֹא שֶׁרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִתְחִיל בּוֹ בְהֵיתֵר. אֶלָּא שֶׁרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר יַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא שַׁבָּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא חוּץ לַחֲצֵירוֹ וְיִגְמוֹר. There147Terumot 7, Mishnah 3, Halakhah 4; Notes 73–75, the entire paragraph with slight variations in wording., we have stated: “If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered into the courtyard from the garden. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish.” Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes one snack containing two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”
תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה חָצֵר שֶׁהִיא נֶעֱדֶרֶת הֲרֵי הִיא כְגִינָּה אוֹכְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ עֲרַאי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׂמְלַאי הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. תַּנֵּי זָרַע רוּבָּהּ חַייָב. נָטַע רוּבָּהּ פְּטוּרָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְהוּא שֶׁנְּטָעָהּ לְנוֹייָהּ שֶׁל חָצֵר. הָדָא יְלָפָא מִן הַהִיא. וְהַהִיא יְלָפָא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יְלָפָא מִן הַהִיא זָרַע רוּבָּהּ חַייֶבֶת וְהִיא שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶעֱדֶרֶת. וְהַהִיא יְלָפָא מִן הָדָא שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה נֶעֱדֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא כְשֵׁירָה וְהוּא שֶׁעִידֵּר רוּבָּהּ. It was stated152Tosephta 2:20. in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: “A courtyard which regularly is being weeded is like a vegetable garden.” Rebbi Simlai said, practice follws Rebbi Neḥemiah. It was stated: If most of it was sown it is obligated, if planted it is free153This is a very difficult text but it is confirmed by Maimonides (Ma‘aser 4:14), R. Abraham ben David (ad loc.) and Caphtor va-Pherach (Chap. 32, p. 504). R. Joseph Caro (Kesef Mishneh ad loc.) explains that a courtyard is always obligated except if it is planted with trees for its beautification since this (a) is permanent and (b) establishes the courtyard as a separate entity, rather than as working space for the house. Since the biblical law requires tithing only when produce is brought to the house, the transformation of the courtyard into a pleasure garden removes the obligation of tithing. The emendation of R. Abraham ben David, followed by R. S. Cirillo, is unnecessary.. Rav Ḥisda said, only if he planted to embellish the courtyard. This infers from that and that infers from this. This infers from that, if most of it was sown, it is obligated if154Even if. it is weeded. That infers from this, if it was weeded155The pleasure garden was tended regularly. it is acceptable only if most of it was weeded.
הָדָא דְתֵימַר אוֹכֵל כְּדַרְכּוֹ פָטוּר בְעוֹמֵד בְּגִינָּה. הֵן דְּתֵימַר אוֹכֵל אֶחָד אֶחָד פָּטוּר וְאִם צֵירַף חַייָב בְּעוֹמֵד בְּחָצֵר. This means “one eats as usual and is free”, when he is standing in the garden; this means “if one eats one by one he is free but if he takes them together he is obligated” if he stands in the courtyard156Explanation of the Mishnah. The text here is that of most Mishnah mss. and the Mishnah in the Munich ms. of the Babli..
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא הָֽיְתָה נִיטֶּלֶת בְּדוקני. דֵּלֹמָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְרִבִּי לֵוִי הֲווֹן יְתִיבִין וַהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מְקַנְתֵּר לְאִילֵּין דַּאֲגַדְּתָא וְצָװַח לְהוֹן סִיפְרֵי קִיסְמֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא לָמָּה אַתְּ מְקַנְתֵּר לוֹן שְׁאַל וְאִינּוּן מֵגִיבִין לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַהוּ הָדֵין דִּכְתִיב כִּי חֲמַת אָדָם תּוֹדֶךָּ שֶׁאֵירִית חֵימוֹת תַּחְגּוֹר. אָמַר לֵיהּ כִּי חֲמַת אָדָם תּוֹדֶךָּ בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. שֶׁאֵירִית חֵימוֹת תַּחְגּוֹר לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אוֹ נֵימַר כִּי חֲמַת אָדָם תּוֹדֶֶךָּ בְּעוֹלָם הַבָּא. שֶׁאֵירִית חֵימוֹת תַּחְגּוֹר בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי כְּשֶׁתְּעוֹרֵר חֲמָֽתְךָ עַל הָֽרְשָׁעִים צִדִּיקִים רוֹאִין מַה אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן וְהֵן מוֹדִין לְשִׁמְךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הִיא הָֽפְכָה וְהִיא מְהַפְּכָה לֹא שְׁמָעִינָן מִינָהּ כְּלוּם. יִרְמְיָה בְנִי אֵזֶל לְצוֹר צוֹר דוקניתָךְ דְּהִיא טָבָא מִן כְּלוּם. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeїra: If it was taken with a dwqny158The meaning of the word is unclear. The consensus of the commentators is that it is some instrument to harvest fruits that plucks more than one fruit at a time. The question is whether then the fruits are automatically obligated for heave and tithes even if the primary intent was to get one only as a snack. The negative answer is obvious. This is another example of R. Jeremiah’s questions; cf. Terumot 10:6:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.10.6.5">Terumot 10, Note 110.
Possibly דוקני is corrupted from דוקרני “pitchfork”, cf. Kilayim 4:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.4.2.3">Kilaim 4:4, Note 60.? Example159Berakhot 1:1:21" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.1.1.21">Berakhot 1:1, Note 72.: Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, and Rebbi Levi were sitting together when Rebbi Zeїra was goading160Berakhot 2:3:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.2.3.6">Berakhot 2:3, Note 96. those of Agadah161The allegorical explanation of Scripture which is not based on anything. and called them books of sorcery. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said to him, why are you goading us? Ask and they will answer you. He said to him, what means that which is written (Psalms.76.11">Ps. 76:11): “For the rage of man brings thanks to You, the leftover rages You will gird?” He said to him, for the rage of man brings thanks to You in this world, the leftover rages You will gird in the future world. He said to him, why can we not say, for the rage of man brings thanks to You in the future world, the leftover rages You will gird in this world? Rebbi Levi said, when You awaken Your rage on the wicked, they will see what You are doing and they will bring thanks to Your name162Midrash Psalms (ed. Bóber, p. 342) explains: ‘For the rage, man brings thanks to You’, when You decreed judgment on Israel by dispersing them, they have to thank You that You did not punish them with all Your Divine might, but ‘the leftover rages You will gird’ to judge the Gentiles on the Day of Judgment.. Rebbi Zeїra said, the same turns and turns around and one does not understand anything from it163None of the explanations is necessary.. Jeremiah my son, go to Tyre, wrap your dwqny because it is better than anything.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן כָּל־שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה חוּץ מִן הַשָּׂדוֹת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף הַשָּׂדוֹת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרַבָּנִין וְקָם בַּיִת אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּיִת מְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי בַּדִּין וּבוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת וּמֶרְחַצִּיּוֹת וְשׁוֹבְכוֹת וּמִגְדָּלוֹת. יָכוֹל אַף הַשָּׂדוֹת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בַּיִת. מַה בַּיִת שֶׁהוּא מְיוּחָד שֶׁהוּא בֵּית דִּירָה. יָֽצְאוּ שָׂדוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בֵּית דִּירָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְקָם הַבַּיִת אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּיִת מְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי בַּדִּין בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת וּמֶרְחַצִּיּוֹת וְשׁוֹבְכוֹת וּמִגְדָּלוֹת וְהַשָּׂדוֹת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר. There164Arakhin 9:5" href="/Mishnah_Arakhin.9.5">Mishnah Arakhin 9:5, Arakhin.32a">Babli Arakhin 32a. Here starts the discussion of the last two sentences of the Mishnah, Notes 149–151., we have stated: “Everything inside the wall is like houses of a walled city except fields165In Sifra Behar Parašah 4(5), the statement is attributed to R. Jehudah. This is confirmed by Arakhin.32a">Babli Arakhin 32a.. Rebbi Meïr says, including fields.” “166Sifra Behar Parašah 4(5–6). What is the reason of the rabbis? (Leviticus.25.30">Lev. 25:30) ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, and towers? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’. I could think, also fields? The verse says, ‘the house.’ The house is special in that it is a dwelling, that excludes fields which are not for dwelling167According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in Arakhin.32a">Babli Arakhin 32a, even R. Meїr will agree that an agricultural field is excluded. The only “fields” he includes are sand quarries and fish ponds which have the character of “ditches and caves”. In the Arakhin 5:7" href="/Tosefta_Arakhin.5.7">Tosephta, Arakhin 5:14, R. Meїr admits gardens and orchards as entities which cannot be reclaimed by the seller later than one full year after the sale.. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, towers, and fields? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’.”
אֲשֶׁר לוֹ חוֹמָה פְּרָט לְבַיִת הַבָּנוּי לְחוֹמָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כּוֹתֶל הַחִיצוֹן הוּא הַחוֹמָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה דָּרַשׁ אֲשֶׁר לוֹ חוֹמָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דָּרַשׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא חוֹמָה. (Leviticus.25.30">Lev. 25:30) 168“ ‘Which has a wall’, this excludes a house which is built as a wall, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, its outer wall is the city wall.” Rebbi Jehudah explains ‘which has a wall169The Qere in the verse; the Ketib is “the house in a city which has no wall.” Since עיר is feminine and לוֹ masculine, the relative pronoun should belong to בית: The house in the city which (i. e., the house) has/does not have a wall. In this interpretation, the positions of R. Jehudah and R. Simeon should be interchanged. In the Babli, the difference between the authors is explained by their different interpretations of the description of Rahab’s house (Joshua.2.15">Jos. 2:15).’; Rebbi Simeon explains ‘which has no wall’.
אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא וְהוּא שֶׁעָלָה דֶרֶךְ הַנּוֹף אֲבָל אִם עָלָה דֶרֶךְ הָעִיקָּר כְּבַר קְלָטוֹ הַעִיקָּר. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this is only if he arrived by the crown. But if he arrived by the stem, the stem already received him170This refers to the cities of refuge. As Maimonides puts it in his Commentary, the Mishnah should be read as: For cities of refuge, the crown also counts..
מַתְנִיתָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִין הַכֹּל כְּלִפְנִים. תַּנֵּי הֶחֱזִיר אֶת הַנּוֹף מִבִּפְנִים כּוּלּוֹ כְּלִפְנִים. וְאִית בָּהֶן תַּנַּייָא קַדְמִיָּא כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. Our Mishnah171The last statement, that ritual Jerusalem is bordered by the wall and all crowns of trees overhanging the wall. follows the House of Shammai who say172Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 3:7; Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 2:12: “Oil presses [built into the wall] open towards the city whose building extends outside, or built inside and opening to the outside, the House of Shammai say, all is counted as inside but the House of Hillel say, what is in the wall and the interior is inside, what is outside is outside.”, all has the status of inside. It was stated173A similar statement in Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 2:12: “If a tree stands inside with its crown extending outside, its Second Tithe can be redeemed {as being harvested outside Jerusalem}. If one turned the crown to be inside, its Second Tithe cannot be redeemed. If [the tree] was standing outside with its crown extending inside, its Second Tithe cannot be redeemed {as being harvested inside Jerusalem}. If he turned the crown so as to be outside, its Second Tithe can be redeemed.”: If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai174Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 2:12: “Rebbi Yose said, this {the preceding statements about trees and olive presses} are the teachings of R. Aqiba. The earlier Mishnah: The House of Shammai [say] one does not redeem there {in or at the oil presses} as if it were inside and one does not eat sacrifices there as if it were outside. But the House of Hillel say, what is open to the inside is inside, what is open to the outside is outside.” For the earlier Mishnah, the Mishnah here is not following the House of Shammai..13