משנה: הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בְּמִידָּה וּמָצָא כְדֵי מִידָּתוֹ פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַייֵב. מָצָא יוֹתֵר עַל מִידָּתוֹ מוֹצִיא עָלָיו מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר לְפִי חֶשְבּוֹן. חוֹרְרֵי הַנְּמָלִים שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּצַד הָעֲרֵימָה מְחַייֶבֶת הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ חַייָבִין שֶׁיָּדוּעַ שֶׁמִּדָּבָר גָּמוּר הָיוּ גוֹרְרִים כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה. שׁוּם בַּעַל בֶּכִּי וּבָצָל שֶׁל רִכְפָּא וּגְרִיסִין הַקִּלִיקִים וַעֲדָשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיּוֹת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף הַקֻּרִיקָם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אַף הַקּרטנים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וְנִלְקָחִים מַכָּל־אָדָם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. זֶרַע לוּף הָעֶלְיוֹן זֶרַע כְּרֵישִׁין זֶרַע בְּצָלִים זֶרַע לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת וּשְׁאַר זֵירְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וְנִלְקָחִין מַכָּל־אָדָם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲבִיהֶן תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יֵאָכֵלוּ. MISHNAH: He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free87The Sages hold that the wine he takes out is the water he poured in which only received taste from the pomace, and taste is not taxable. R. Jehudah holds that there was an exchange of fluid between the water and the pomace and now part of the fluid is genuinely subject to heave and tithes.. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated. If he found more than his measure he gives proportionally from another place88This again is the opinion of the anonymous Sages. Even though the additional amount of fluid certainly came from the pomace, it is not wine in the biblical sense..
The holes of ants which were near an obligated heap overnight are obligated since it is obvious that they were dragging from what was processed all night94Grains found in antholes the day after a heap of grain was smoothed but not yet tithed have to be tithed since they were taken from grain completely processed but not tithed..
Baalbek garlic, Rikhpa onion, Cilician grits111Broken beans., and Egyptian lentils, Rebbi Meïr says also colocasia112The Rome ms. and the Maimonides autograph of the Mishnah read קרקס. One Genizah ms. and most Tosephta sources (3:15) read קלקס and this seems to be the basis of Maimonides’s identification of the plant as אלקלקאס “colocasia, Egyptian bean”., Rebbi Yose says also qrṭnym113This reading has no correspondence in the variant readings of the Mishnah and generally is considered a scribal error of the Leyden ms. The Maimonides autograph reads קוטנין, most other mss. קוטנים; Arabic קֻטנִיַּה “legumes, flour-containing seeds other than grain”. The Arabic is the Gaonic definition (Ahilut 18:2) for Hebrew קטניות “legumes”. Maimonides describes the fruit as “a kind of pea”. According to Arukh, it is called in Arabic צג̇יר אלאד̇נאב “small of tail”; I. Löw identifies as nelumbo nucifera. are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical114These are not cultivated in the Land.. The seed of the upper part of arum115The seeds, in contrast to the bulb., the seeds of leeks, seeds of onions, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten are free from tithes and may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical116Since they are not food, they are not titheable even by rabbinic standards and not covered by the Sabbatical restrictions on “its (the Land’s) yield to eat” (Leviticus.25.7">Lev. 25:7). and these may be eaten if their father was heave117The principle that “growth from heave is heave” (Terumot 9:4) applies only to food. Therefore, the growth from inedible seeds from heave of vegetables is profane since it is not growth from heave..
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ זִימְנִין אָמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. זִימְנִין אָמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָא. וְהוּא שֶׁהֶחֱמִיץ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַתֶּמֶד עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱמִיץ אֵינוֹ נִיקַּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מִשֶּׁהֶחֱמִיץ נִיקַּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּתַנִינָן תַּמָּן הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בְּמִידָּה וּמָצָא כְדֵי מִידָּתוֹ פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוּדָה מְחַייֵב. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ זִימְנִין אָמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְהוּא שֶׁהֶחֱמִיץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ מֵי מֶלַח נִיקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented89Unfermented after-wine is simply water. In the Chullin.25b-26a">Babli, Ḥulin 25b/26a, this is the opinion of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. R. Eleazar is reported to hold that the anonymous Sages and R. Jehudah disagree about all kinds of after-wine but that tithing from a different batch is possible only for fermented wine since otherwise the tithe might be invalid, being from one kind for another.. There90Chullin 1:7" href="/Mishnah_Chullin.1.7">Mishnah Ḥulin 1:7., we have stated: “After-wine before it fermented cannot be bought with money of [Second] Tithe91Second Tithe which was redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy.14.26">Deut. 14:26) “You may spend the money for all your heart’s desire, cattle, sheep, wine, or liquor,or anything you want, eat it there and be merry you and your house.” This has the structure of two general statements divided by a detailed list. Both for R. Ismael and for R. Aqiba, the general statements have to be interpreted in the light of the list; the money may only be spent on food. This excludes water and salt which are not food. Cf. Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4, Notes 144–151. or make a miqweh invalid92As water, cf. Terumot 10:6:12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.10.6.12">Terumot 10, Note 139.; after it fermented it may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe and does not make a miqweh invalid.” That Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s since we stated: “He who makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe93In the Eruvin.27a">Babli, Eruvin 27a, this is the opinion of both R. Eleazar and R. Yose ben Ḥanina; in the Yerushalmi, Eruvin 3:1, fol. 20d, this is the opinion of R. Eleazar alone. The Yerushalmi there disagrees with the argument here since R. Aḥa qualifies the statement of R. Eleazar and permits salt water only if some oil is added, turning it into food. In the opinion of the Babli, the Mishnah in Ḥulin cannot be squared with the one in Ma‘serot but represents a third opinion ascribed to R. Joḥanan ben Nuri..
מַהוּ מוֹצִיא מַעְשְׂרוֹת. הָא תְרוּמָה לֹא. שֶׁהַתּוֹרֵם בְּלִבּוֹ עַל הַקִּיטְעִין וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין וְעַל מַה שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַתֶּבֶן. What does he give? Tithes! That means, not heave since everybody giving heave also thinks of broken grain53The parts of grain that cannot be removed from the straw in threshing., what is left on the sides, and what remains in the chaff.
הַמְמָרֵחַ כְּרִיּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר נִטְבַּל. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לֹא נִטְבַּל. מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְכֵן נָשִׁים שֶׁנָּֽתְנוּ לְנַחְתּוֹם לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶן שְׂאוֹר אִם אֵין בְּשֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶן כְּשִׁיעוּר פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. וְאִם בְּשֶׁל כּוֹלְהֶן כְּשִׁיעוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ שֶׁכֵּן הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה עַל מְנָת לְחַלְּקָהּ עִיסָּה פְטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. וְהָתַנִּינָן נַחְתּוֹם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׂאוֹר לְחַלֵּק חַייָב בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר לוֹ לֹא תְתִיבֵינִי נַחְתּוֹם. נַחְתּוֹם לֹא בְדַעְתּוֹ הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי בְּדַעַת הַלְּקוּחוֹת הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא לְקוּחוֹת וְיִטְבּוֹל מִיָּד. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָא תַנֵּי חוֹרְרֵי נְמָלִים שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּצַד עֲרֵימָה הַחַייֶבֶת הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ חַייָבִין. הָא בְצַד עֲרֵימָה פְטוּרָה פְּטוּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר וְהֵן שֶׁגִּירְרוּ רָאשֵׁי שִׁיבֳּלִין. 95This paragraph and the next two are also in Ḥallah 1:8. The text in Ḥallah is somewhat better; it is the original since the second paragraph following belongs only to Ḥallah. The initial statement is also quoted in Ma‘serot Halakhah 4:1. If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state96Ḥallah Mishnah 1:7.: “And similarly women who gave97Flour. to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount98The minimum amount of flour to produce dough subject to ḥallah is 5/4 standard qab. Even if the total amount of flour the baker turns into sour dough is greater than that amount, there is no obligation of ḥallah since the flour never became his property. This argument is appropriate for questioning R. Joḥanan’s position, not R. Simeon ben Laqish’s. it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount99This sentence is missing in Ḥallah. It introduces an extraneous argument; if the baker makes one big batch of sour dough from the flour and the obligated amount is not recognizable, it is clear that all is obligated.?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it100To different people to bake their own bread., the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated101First part of Ḥallah Mishnah 1:7.: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately102This argument can only be understood by a combination with the text in Ḥallah 1:8: שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא לְקוּחוֹת וְהוּא חוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶה אוֹתָהּ עִיסָּה. “maybe he will find customers and he uses it immediately for dough”. Maybe the customer buys the sour dough not for making bread at home but for bread the baker will make for him. Then the sour dough is immediate ṭevel by the sale in the baker’s hands.
The commentators change the text to: “maybe he will not find a customer and he uses it immediately for dough himself”. This is unnecessary and false since his own sour dough in his own bread dough can be put in order by one ḥallah given when the bread dough is completely kneaded.. He said to him, but was it not stated103In Ḥallah 1:8, והא תנינן “did we not state”, formula appropriate for a Mishnah. But it seems that the formula (for a baraita) used here is correct since מחייבת in the Mishnah is replaced by החייבת. (In Ḥallah, one reads only חייבת.) One has to conclude that the reading of the manuscripts, מחייבת, is not a scribal error but a stand-in for מחויבת.: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,94Grains found in antholes the day after a heap of grain was smoothed but not yet tithed have to be tithed since they were taken from grain completely processed but not tithed.” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation104יאוש “resignation” is a technical term for the automatic turning of lost property into ownerless property once the original owners have given up hope for recovery. No declaration of abandonment is needed in that case. Since grains taken by ants have to be considered as abandoned, even if recovered by the original owner they can be subject to heave and tithes only if the tithing of the heap by the original owner also extends to grains not in his possession now. Tithing those grains is tantamount to tithing of another’s property without the latter’s knowledge.. Samuel ben Abba105He is Samuel, the head of the Academy of Nahardea. He explains “exempt” not as “already tithed” but “not yet threshed”, so that the ants took not grains but parts of ears. In that case, the grains taken by the ants do not fall under our rules. He also must hold that ערימה in contrast to כרי denotes an unsmoothed heap which is obligated if the owner does not intend to process further. said, only if they dragged tips of ears.
מָתִיב רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהָתַנִּינָן הִקְדִּישָׁן עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ וּגְמָרָן הַגִּיזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדָייָן פְּטוּרִין. הֲרֵי גִּיזְבָּר כְּאַחֵר הוּא וְאַתְּ אָמַר מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ תִּיפְתָּר כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר גִּזְבָּר כְּבַעֲלִין וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר הוּא גִּיזְבָּר הוּא אַחֵר. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan106The argument makes sense only as objection from R. Joḥanan to R. Simeon ben Laqish. It seems that Maimonides read in the first paragraph “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan” and in the second “Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish” since in his Code (Ma‘serot 3:7) he follows R. Joḥanan which probably he would not have done if R. Joḥanan disagreed with R. Yose, the preeminent Tanna.: Did we not state107Peah 4:5" href="/Mishnah_Peah.4.5">Mishnah Peah 4:5 (Note 81), about a field dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed.: “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and against Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.
רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה חֲבֵרוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין בָּעֵי וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בְּכוּלְּהֹן כְּשִׁיעוּר יֵעָשֶׂה כְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ וְיהֵא פָּטוּר דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא [רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא] בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אַף בְּמַה שֶׁבְּלָגֵין לֹא נִטְבַּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לְהַחֲזִירוֹ בִּדְבַר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. 109This paragraph refers to Mishnah Ḥallah 1:7. Since nobody makes bread out of sour dough without the addition of plain flour, sour dough is not bread dough ready to be baked, is not fully processed, and should not be subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since 110The original statement is in Halakhah 1:6 (Note 151) and Halakhah 4:3 (Note 61) and is explained there. Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it.
אֵי זֶהוּ שׁוּם בַּעַל בֵּיכִּי כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹר אֶחָד מַקִּיף אֶת הֶעָמוּד. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קְלִיפָּה אַחַת. אֵי זֶהוּ בָצָל שֶׁל רִכְפָּה כָּל־שֶׁעוּקָצוֹ נִמְעָךְ לְתוֹכוֹ. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֵירֶס. “118A similar text in Tosephta 3:15. What is Baalbek garlic? Any with only one hole119In the Tosephta: “One row”. Garlic not split into several cloves. surrounding the stem. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any with only one skin120In the Tosephta, this is Rabban Simeon’s definition of Rikhpa onions.. What is Rikhpa onion? Any whose prick is dissolved in it121Reading of both mss. of the Yerushalmi. The Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta reads: “Any whose curvature (עוקמו) is dissolved in it.”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that has no poison.”
אֵילּוּ הֵן גְּרִיסִין הַקִּילִקִין אֵילּוּ הַמְּרוּבָּעִין. תַּנִּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֵין מְרוּבָּע מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. הָתִיב רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה וְהָתַנִּינָן גּוּפָהּ שֶׁל בַּהֶרֶת כְּגְרִיס הַקִּילִקִי מְרוּבָּע. אָמַר רִבִּי בִּיסִּינָה כָּל־גַּרְמָא אָֽמְרָה לֵית לֵיהּ מְרוּבָּע. וְלָמָּה תַנִּינָן. דִּירִבְעֶנָּה הִיא. וְהִיא נִגְעָה מָלֵא קִיטְרִין. וְהִיא אָבִיבָא דְּפִילָא עָגוּל הוּא מִלְּמַטָּן. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר לֹא אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶלָּא בַּבִּרְיוֹת. וְתַנִּי כֵן מְרוּבָּע בְּאוֹכְלִין אֵין מְרוּבָּע בַּבִּרְיוֹת. 122Essentially the same text is in Nedarim 3:2 (fol. 37d) and Ševuot 3:9 (fol. 34d). Both Yerushalmi mss. agree here on the text. Therefore, the other texts may be used to instruct the text here but not to correct it. These are Cilician grits, these are square123In Tosephta 3:15: “These are Cilician grits: square algosin.” The last word is otherwise unknown. Lieberman prefers the reading of the quote from the Yerushalmi in Arukh,s.v. קלקי אילו גסין המרובעים׃ “these are the fat square ones.”. It was stated124Tosephta 3:15.: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state125Mishnah Nega‘im 6:1. In Ševuot3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Leviticus.13.18-23">Lev. 13:18–23} is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.”: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna126A fourth generation Amora, student of R. Ila. said, that127The text of the Mishnah, Note 125 R. Bisna takes the expression “square” in the classical mathematical sense, “determination of the surface area”. The Mishnah requires the minimal surface area of a lesion to be (36)2 (hairwidth)2. If the expression did not have its mathematical sense, the numerical indication would be superfluous. “That” in this sentence is the second sentence of the Mishnah. in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects128In Nedarim הכנעה “lice”.! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila129In Nedarimארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage.! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.
אֵילוּ הֵן עֲדָשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיּוֹת כָּל־שֶׁגַּלְגְּלֵיהֶן חַדִּין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן צְרוֹרוֹת. אֵילוּ הֵן הַקֻּרִיקָס. כָּל־שֶׁעוּקָצֵיהֶן מוּעָטִין וְהִלְקֵטֵיהֶן מְרוּבִּין. מַה דָמִי לָהּ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין קוֹנִייָתָה. 124Tosephta 3:15.“These are Egyptian lentils: All whose spheres are sharp-edged125Mishnah Nega‘im 6:1. In Ševuot3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Leviticus.13.18-23">Lev. 13:18–23} is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any that have no pebbles126A fourth generation Amora, student of R. Ila.. What are colocasia? All whose pricks are short and their extensions127The text of the Mishnah, Note 125 R. Bisna takes the expression “square” in the classical mathematical sense, “determination of the surface area”. The Mishnah requires the minimal surface area of a lesion to be (36)2 (hairwidth)2. If the expression did not have its mathematical sense, the numerical indication would be superfluous. “That” in this sentence is the second sentence of the Mishnah. are many.” What compares to it? Rebbi Yose said, like these qonyata128In Nedarim הכנעה “lice”..
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי כַּרְכֻּמִּין מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מוּתָּרִין מִשּׁוּם סְפִחִין. הָתִיב רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר יִרְמְיָּה וְהָתַנִּינָן הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַשְׁבִיעִית אֵין לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן פִּשְׁתָּן אֲפִילוּ סָרוּק. וּפִשְׁתָּן לָאו קִיסְמִין הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא מִפְּנֵי זַרְעָהּ. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר אִם מִפְּנֵי זַרְעָהּ וְהָתַנִּינָן הֶחָשׁוּד לִהְיוֹת מוֹכֵר תְּרוּמָה לְחוּלִין אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר מַיִם וּמֶלַח מִפְּנֵי זַרְעוֹ לֹא מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. אַף הָכָא מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is crocus129In Nedarimארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage. permitted as aftergrowth? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah asked, did we not state130Bekhorot 4:8" href="/Mishnah_Bekhorot.4.8">Mishnah Bekhorot 4:8. This shows that industrial products which fall under the rules of the Sabbatical fall under all restrictions as if they were food.: “One does not buy flax from anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical, not even combed?” Is flax not like wood chips131It is inedible.? Rebbi Ḥinena said, because of its seed132A source of edible oil.. Rebbi Mana said, if it were because of its seed, did we not state: “133Bekhorot 4:9" href="/Mishnah_Bekhorot.4.9">Mishnah Bekhorot 4:9. One does not buy water or salt from anybody suspect of selling heave as profane?” Can you say, water or salt because of their seeds? No, as a fine. Here also as a fine134An ad hoc decree from which no general conclusion can be drawn. Crocus might be permitted as aftergrowth..
מְנַחֵם בַּר מַכְסִימָא אָחוֹי דְּיוֹנָתָן קַיְפָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַמִּי פִּשְׁתָּן נִלְקָחַת מִכָּל־אָדָם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. הָדָא דְתֵימָר בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חָשׁוּד הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד. הָא דָבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד אָסוּר. זוּגָא קְרִיבֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. בִּיקִייָא נִלְקָחַת מִכָּל־אָדָם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתְנִיתִין אָֽמְרָה כֵן זֶרַע לוּף הָעֶלְיוֹן זֶרַע כְּרֵישִׁין זֶרַע בְּצָלִין זֶרַע לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת וּשְׁאַר זֵירְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. וְתַנִּי עֲלָהּ זֶרַע אִסָּטִיס וְזֶרַע קוֹצָה וְזֶרַע בִּיקִיָא הָא בִּיקִיָא עַצְמָהּ לֹא. דִּילְמָא דְּלָא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חָשׁוּד הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד. הָא דָבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חָשׁוּד אָסוּר. Menaḥem ben Maximus the brother of Jonathan Caiphas in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Flax may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. That is, if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden135The statement of R. Ammi does not contradict Bekhorot 4:8" href="/Mishnah_Bekhorot.4.8">Mishnah Bekhorot 4:8.. Zeugos, the relative of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Vetch may be bought from anybody during the Sabbatical. Rebbi Yose said: Does our Mishnah say so? “The upper seed of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of egg plants, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten.” We have stated on this: Seeds of indigo, seeds of madder, and seeds of vetch136Follow the same rules.. That implies, not vetch itself. Maybe if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden137To buy vetch as animal feed but vetch seed may be bought even from people known to deal in Sabbatical produce..
כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא זֶרַע הַסִּילִיּוֹן שֶׁל לוּף. חָדָא אִיתָא הֲוָה לָהּ יַרְבּוּזִין דִּתְרוּמָה גַּו כִּפְתָּהּ נָֽפְלוּ לְגִינְתָא וְצָֽמְחוּן. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְשָׁרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר װָא וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲבִיהֶן תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יֵאָכֵלוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ בַּבְלַייָא מִן דְגָלִייָת לָךְ חַסְפָּא אַשְׁכָּחַת מַרְגָּנִיתָא אַתְּ אָמַר וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. So is the Mishnah: The seeds on the stem of arum138This is the reading and interpretation of Maimonides. The other interpretations (R. Isaac Simponti, R. Simson) have to rearrange the sentence except for R. Isaac Simponti’s second explanation, “the seeds of the thorns of arum,” which does not fit reality since arum, an aracea, has no thorns.. Some woman had heave purslain on a block. They fell into a garden and sprouted. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan who permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, is this not the Mishnah: “And these may be eaten if their father was heave?” He said to him, Babylonian, when you cleared a potsherd for yourself, you found a pearl! You said, is that not the Mishnah!